Re: Here we go again!

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

===========================================================
Your opinion counts! We're conducting a survey for a
computer service/repair company. When you complete our
survey, you will also be entered into a drawing for one of
ten $100 prizes. Just click
http://click.topica.com/caab6PVaVxieSa8wsBba/ Val Rad
===========================================================
[Last night (April 7, 2004) I received the following response from Ted
Henry
<ted@theodorejhenry.com>. - LS]

Lenny:

Yes, here we go again.  I have not yet read all your recent postings on
the issue; it has been a hectic week.  In reality, I do not need to in
order to know what is in them.  I do not need to read them to be
depressed about what is happening in our United States and the
short-sightedness that drives DOD and its overt goals with regard to the
environment.  I sat in a conference several months ago and heard from
the keynote speaker what they planned to do next - it has not been a
secret. In fact, those driving the RRPI train are very proud of the
tracks they have laid down and where they are headed.  As for their next
stop, RRPI 04, I guess I will read up in the days to come, but I can
tell from your posting that I, most certainly, will not find much on
which to build hope for the future.

The sad truth is that DOD set out on a multi-year plan to significantly
reduce its environmental responsibilities through change in law and
policy because it knew it could under the republican White House and
republican Congress.  And, to no surprise after 9/11, it is succeeding.
We are in a time of two wars, one against terror with no conceivable
victory or end, and one against Iraq, what many call the elective war.
During these wars, our republican leadership does not even care about
balanced budgets (a once republican trademark), despite the compounding
impacts growing deficits will have on the future of this country as the
baby boomers begin to retire.  Considering this sobering fact, it is no
surprise RRPI is methodically moving along.  Hell, environmental and
public health issues can be a difficult sell in time of plenty and
peace, because science is so poor at measuring the long-term
repercussions of our actions.  During a war with no end, environmental
regression is predictably automatic and relatively swift compared to how
long it took to learn and mature (figuring out the environment is
directly tied to health).

The sad reality is DOD policy makers will accomplish this year what they
accomplished last year and the year before.  They will not get all of
what they ask for, but they will get some.  This will allow the current
republican leadership in Congress to look like they are scrutinizing
DOD's requests, playing it tough and only giving DOD a portion of what
they ask for.  In fact, that is all DOD really expects to get and it is
okay with them.  They will look back over the few years in total and
measure their success.  It is a simple, yet successful game.

Under this republican dominated process, public health and long-term
maintenance of our natural resources are almost completely irrelevant.
And we will be left to measure our failures as a society in the decades
to come, just as with Camp LeJeune and other sites, we get to measure
now, our failures from decades past. My father once spoke to me about
the wise realization that came to humans long ago: Freedoms are not
taken all at once, but little by little, piece by piece. It is a simple
game.

This Congressional session will be a little bit harder to take because
now some of what DOD will receive from our Congress will involve the
weakening of the most important of the environmental laws that protect
current and future American lives.  Ironic that DOD's primary mission is
to protect democracy and American lives given how they have approached
environmental responsibility in recent years in this country, isn't it?

 One of the main reasons I registered as a republican as a young man was
because I believed that the United States should have a strong military.
Needless to say, my affiliation with the party is becoming increasingly
repulsive. I still hold onto the belief of a strong military though, and
I recognize that many people have fought and died for our freedoms.  The
part I cannot swallow is that Americans fought and died so DOD could
reduce its requirements to protect biodiversity, human health, drinking
water, etc. This is a simple load of crap. "A strong military" does not
need to translate into systemic disregard for natural resources and
human life.  Will there inevitably be some destruction of resources here
at home to have a strong military, the answer is Yes.  Should DOD have
the only say in where these losses occur, what are acceptable losses,
and to whom such losses are dealt? Absolutely not, not in the America I
know and work hard for.

Certainly various DOD policy makers and fiscal managers will rebut RRPI
concerns, noting all the initiatives that have been taken to protect and
maintain the environment over the years.  But it is simple fact that
there are only two drivers that drive DOD to spend money on
environmental initiatives; it is either A) legal drivers (federal and
state environmental laws), or B) fiscal drivers ("even though we
absolutely do not have to, lets do it because we can save money down the
road").  This should not be confused with the installation or project
level.  Down at these lower levels, where humanness and doing the right
thing sometimes still has role to play, things can be done for a better
reason (as long as it can be sold under the header of A or B listed
above).  In many situations, committed military and civilian personnel
will work hard to be inclusive and make good things happen.  At the
levels from where RRPI comes, RRPI itself clearly shows that such
partnership and working relationships are faded, obsolete concepts.

But, in reality, my perceptions of what our country could be is as
irrelevant to what is happening today with RRPI as the protection of
public health and natural resources.  So, let's look at the sobering,
unfortunate days ahead.  In the weeks to come, individuals and groups
will put their hearts and souls on the line to try to fight back the
current assault, while refusing to acknowledge the nauseating,
inevitable question: Which part of the remaining environmental
requirements we demand of our military is the least painful to lose?
CERCLA? RCRA? Clean Air Act?  From all I have seen, the answer "None" is
not an option, at least not an answer Congress will hear this year.

 Ted Henry

===========================================================
Your opinion counts! We're conducting a survey for a
computer service/repair company. When you complete our
survey, you will also be entered into a drawing for one of
ten $100 prizes. Just click
http://click.topica.com/caab6PiaVxieSa8wsBbf/ Val Rad
===========================================================
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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