Under siege

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Oct 7, 2006

Nearly everywhere the U.S. military trains, it now finds itself fending off flanking attacks from an enemy within. These environmental extremists say they are concerned about the impacts training activities have on plants and animals, but they also undoubtedly relish the opportunity to champion two liberal causes at once, by undermining the military's ability to prepare for war. Rare is the military facility or activity that isn't under a green siege of some sort, but for a few recent examples let's turn toward Hawaii.

On Friday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a lower court and blocked the Army from basing a 3,800-soldier Stryker brigade on the islands. Two of three judges on the panel ruled that the Army "violated environmental laws by not properly considering all alternatives," The Associated Press reported, "including basing the new brigade someplace other than Hawaii."

The court effectively told the Army to look elsewhere. But if "elsewhere" was a strategically suitable option, we're sure the Pentagon would have done so. This Stryker brigade, which is lighter and more mobile than its heavily armored counterparts, is part of a rapid deployment force for the Pacific Rim region. Thus, it makes perfect sense to base it in Hawaii.

Judge William Fletcher, writing for the majority, said the Army failed to adequately answer the question, "Why Hawaii?" But why not Hawaii, if the Army's intent is to have forces positioned closer to potential flashpoints in the region? We don't expect federal judges to be military tacticians, but can't we expect that they'll have a little common sense -- or at least enough humility to leave military deployment decisions to the professionals?

Earthjustice -- whose mission is to gum up the federal court system, arguing cases on behalf of the lunatic fringe -- denies it's anti-military -- says it just wants the Army to abide by the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires exhaustive study and paralysis-inducing analysis before a federal agency can change a light bulb. Blame the judges if you choose, but even sensible jurists are stuck enforcing unworkable laws. NEPA is desperately in need of an overhaul -- such idiotic rulings prove it.

The Army is weighing its options, but yet another legal appeal isn't the answer. Congress must act to ensure that America's military posture and readiness isn't further jeopardized by those who think protecting tree snails is more important than safeguarding national security.

The Navy also has seen its mission impaired in Hawaii, by environmentalists trying to curtail the use of certain sonars they say harm whales and dolphins, in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In July, greens attempted to force a halt to the use of the sonar during a major training exercise with Pacific Rim allies. A compromise was worked out that allowed the exercises to go on, but the push continues to ban the use of this critically important technology.

Protecting the environment is a worthy goal, within reason. But maintaining military readiness is more important, when push comes to shove. Not only the effectiveness but the safety of Navy personnel will be at risk if this nutty attempt to stop the use of sonar isn't nipped in the bud. We can't trust federal judges to do this -- after all, the Marine Mammal Protection Act does make it illegal to harm or even "harass" a whale or a dolphin. It's time for Congress to amend or re-write applicable laws to ensure that national security comes first.

Den of iniquity

The media and blogosphere are working themselves into a frothy boil over Mark Foley, the Florida Republican who resigned from Congress after ABC News made public some of the suggestive -- and well beyond suggestive -- e-mails and text messages he had exchanged with young male congressional pages. These revelations, combined with questions about whether Republican leaders in the House turned a blind eye to Foley's behavior, now appear capable of ending GOP control of Congress. If that happens, we can't say they didn't have it coming.

Did the Republican leadership fail to act when it had evidence that something -- at best creepy and at worst illegal -- was happening? Will this scandal torpedo the Republicans in the midterm elections? Was the news story timed to have a political impact? The questions are endless and, apparently, endlessly fascinating to many Americans.

An aspect too little appreciated is this scandal's relationship to the arrogance of power, the abuse of power and the insulation power can provide to those tempted to test various limits. Members of Congress are coddled and protected. They get special license plates that protect them from speeding tickets. Staff attend to their personal and political needs, and in may cases, a "cone of silence" surrounds some of their questionable activities.

It's not surprising, then, that some come to act as if they think they are invulnerable to criticism and don't have to abide by the rules of civility, or law, most of us observe. We have certainly had sex scandals, and gay sex scandals, in Congress before. Former and current Massachusetts Democratic Reps. Gerry Studds and Barney Frank didn't have to resign as a result of theirs. But Republicans seem to hold to a higher standard, at least when it comes to gay sex scandals.