Friday, January 27, 2012
Military Combat aviation brigade gets slammed
Posted by Pam Zubeck on Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:43 PM
- Pam Zubeck
- Say your peace: the scene at the Crowne Plaza.
The idea of bringing dozens of helicopters and thousands of soldiers to Fort Carson and the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in southeast Colorado in the next couple of years got a chilly reception here last night.
Of 17 people who spoke before 7:30 p.m. on the Environmental Assessment of the unit, only one supported the plan: local businessman Jay Cimino. (Others in favor might have spoken after I left.)
Here's the EA: Carson_CAB_Draft_EA.pdf
Held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, it was the third meeting in a week to gather public comments on the EA, which found no significant impacts foreseen from the Combat Aviation Brigade that the Pentagon wants to create at Fort Carson. About 80 people showed up, including many residents from the Trinidad area near the PCMS.
While the CAB would require construction of facilities on post, many buildings are already built. This is strange, since the unit was only given final approval by the Pentagon last March. Those buildings were built a year or more ago, and some have wondered how Carson got approval to spend the money.
Anyway, here are other impacts of the unit:
— Several hundred acres of ground disturbance/renovation/construction at Butts Army Airfield.
— About 2,700 soldiers, 4,000 family members, 113 helicopters, 600-700 vehicles and other equipment.
— CAB training at Fort Carson and Pinon Canyon.
— Construction of seven concrete helicopter pads adjacent to the existing runway at the maneuver site.
— 14,800 flight hours per year, of those, 4,960 of those hours at Pinon Canyon; with other visiting units, a total of 25,000 flight hours is predicted.
— Aircraft must maintain a minimum altitude of 500 feet above ground level unless operating in designated low-level or nap-of-the-earth training route.
— CAB will increase live-fire training by 6.5 percent in both locations.
— Construction will include offices, housing, vehicle and aircraft parking, maintenance buildings, equipment storage, recreational facilities.
— Training by mechanized units wouldn't exceed 4.7 months per year at PCMS.
Bob Kinsey with the Green Party in Colorado Springs noted that a Pentagon report of a decade ago concluded that the greatest threat to national security was climate change. Yet, the Defense Department wants to create a new CAB that would "chew up fuel" and damage the environment, he said.
Lorraine Paulson, a geologist with the Bureau of Land Management, noted there are 4,163 archeology sites at the PCMS, 948 of which are eligible for listing on the National Registry. "I hope there is a way to set them aside," she said.
Doug Holdread, a member of the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition, noted the Army's efforts to expand training at the PCMS have been "relentless" over the last six years.
Springs resident Bill Sulzman noted the Army has no agreement with the BLM for landing zones, and that the Forest Service agreement has been violated by visiting helicopter units training in the Pike National Forest. He warned that once approved, the Army would make "backdoor revisions" that would expand training area and frequency beyond the current proposal.
One woman spoke in behalf of birds, deer and other wildlife, saying, "We should act as stewards of the land, not murderers. This corrupts our humanity."
A young man, Alex Drowbridge, noted the CAB's $4 billion price tag, saying Colorado's education budget has been slashed by $1.1 billion in recent years, and the nation's entire cancer research budget is only $5 billion. "We should deeply consider the necessity of this [CAB]," he said.
Several spoke generally against the United States' war mentality, including civil rights attorney Bill Durland, who concluded by saying, "Who would Jesus bomb, anyway?"
Otero County Commissioner Keith Goodwin said commissioners in Otero, Baca, Crowley and Pueblo counties will soon vote on whether to join the Las Animas County commissioners in calling for an Environmental Impact Statement, a more thorough investigation that takes longer than an EA.
Lon Robertson, president of the opposition coalition, noted that while Colorado Springs would benefit economically, southeast Colorado farmers and ranchers "have a right to our private property, to our life and livelihood."
Responding to a warning from the moderator that "posturing" against the war wasn't allowed, Evan Weissman said, "If we were talking about a poop sandwich factory, we could posture against the poop sandwich. The point of this is war, and war is not a clean little noun. The environmental impact is war — the worst possible thing for the environment. I don't want to bring jobs where the end result is bad."
Laurie Holdread said Trinidad accused the Army of making an assault on the community's character and added, "I don't want to become a satellite of Colorado Springs' military-based economy."
Cimino, though, spoke in favor of the CAB and the military in general, saying, the brigade "will help our soldiers keep the peace and keep the enemy from our shores."
Public comment ends Thursday, Feb. 2. A second comment period will open March 22 and close April 23. Carson's garrison commander will make a decision after that.
Comments (10)
Showing 1-10 of 10
"will help our soldiers keep the peace ..... and keep the enemy from our shores."
First half of that sentence is correct; training troops is essential for readiness.
Second half of that sentence is crap; no one could invade us in the conventional military sense; no nation has the capability to mount an invasion. Mr. Cimino simply wants more young soldiers to patronize Phil Long's 15+ car sales operations in the region.
like
dislike
Posted by
OldCrank
on January 27, 2012 at 7:37 PM
Alex Drowbridge, thanks for going to be heard, very smart input !
Posted by
DOB
on January 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM
All those opposed to the expansion of training at Pinion Canyon should look at how the Fort Hood training area limited use agreement easement zones around the extensive Fort Hood training area have worked successfully. And the area around Fort Hood is much more densely populated than around Pinion Canyon (desolate, anyone??) Not to mention that the training area at Fort Hood has been leased to the Army for decades (at a considerable profit to the local ranching families) and they all have sweetheart deals that allow free-range grazing of their herds and significant compensation for the loss of livestock caused by (rare) accidents with training. Besides, Pinion Canyon is so seldom used its almost a ghost town. Call opposition what it is: We support the troops, but not in our back yard.
Posted by
shearmodulus
on January 30, 2012 at 4:00 PM
"Second half of that sentence is crap; no one could invade us in the conventional military sense; no nation has the capability to mount an invasion." And do you know why no one has the capability to mount an invasion? It's not for lack of naval or air force capacity (Russia, emerging China, etc) but rather a shortage of naval and air forces that can match ours. If it weren't for the deterrence created by having a strong military, anyone in a rowboat could invade our shores. We wouldn't even be able to repel the Haitian refugees without a Navy and Coast Guard. If you took the time to actually read our National Defense Strategy, you would understand this. This is why 9/11 was an "asymetrical" attack, which uses niche abilities to exploit weaknesses in our defense strategy. Trans-national terrorists don't have navies and air forces, but you can bet your last dollar that if they DID have it, they would use them. As it stands now, it would take them about 20 years of uninterrupted work to come up with one unless they managed to engineer the control of a nation with a military or industrial capacity to create or expand one (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or Taliban insurgents taking over Pakistan, or the whack jobs in Iran). There are four elements to national power: Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic. At the end of the day, the one that gives strength to the other three is Military. You can throw billions of aid at "friendly" regimes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc), you can pressure rogue states for 50+ years with sanctions (North Korea) and you can twist arms at the debate table (NATO), but unless you can back up your threats with force, the rest is meaningless. And THAT is why a strong military is a necessary evil that must be carefully employed as the "last straw" that it should be. But if NIMBY shuts down all of the military's ability to train, the military becomes a paper tiger and we get our asses handed to us when we ACTUALLY need to use it. But hey, scale everything back.... eliminate the military. It's ok. The world is a wonderful, friendly, rosy place where everyone loves us and would NEVER dream of taking away our resources, our ability to trade with other nations, or the very lifeblood of our economy.
Posted by
shearmodulus
on January 30, 2012 at 6:28 PM
@shearmodulus, you're ranting at the choir....I know those things quite well and my comment is correct as stated.
No nation on this planet has the ability to deliver and sustain a large invading force other than the USA. Large Asian forces are essentially landlocked. China could invade N. Korea and/or other nations with which they share a common LAND border. China has but one aircraft carrier, a new ship now in sea trials, but it's a sitting duck for our missiles.
Biggest threat is still Russia's nuclear submarines. Their land forces can't get here either, nor can they sustain them; even the Afghan Mujahideen chased them out with but a pittance of aid from us that was delivered via Pakistan.
In the asymmetrical sense, the 10-15M illegal immigrants who entered via our southern borders are an invasion force of a different sort, though almost totally benign and beneficial.
When it comes to economic power, our biggest threat is still from within. The tax cuts of 2001 by the idiot Bush put our balance sheet in the red -- seriously weakening our nation. Our very own Wall Street crowd all but destroyed the investment and banking system, a massive self-inflicted wound that did not come from any foreign nation, but our own "wizards" on Wall Street.
Posted by
OldCrank
on January 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Oldcrank... I can't disagree with much of your analysis of our fiscal situation or the threat posed by a porous border to determined infiltrators who seek to attack us at home. Your comment however on sustaining our forces to deter agression does not take into account that you cannot simply create our military capacity overnight. It takes decades to create a professional military capable of defending our home shores against ANY threat. Just to command a non-flag ranked ship or command a combat infantry brigade takes matriculating leaders with 20-25 years of experience in doing just that kind of job, albeit at lower levels. History is rife with examples of "superpowers" who allowed their militaries to be gutted, and then paid a tremendous price in blood and treasure when they were called upon to fight, but yet had no capable leaders with experience to do so. Did you know that the Regular Army at the start of the Civil War (and for the duration, most were volunteer militias) was only 30,000 soldiers?, and maxxed out at 2.1 million. At the start of WWI, it was 98,000 which would later expand to 4,000,000 in uniform, of which half went overseas to fight. When Germany invaded Poland, we ranked 17th the in the world with 190,000, with 14,000 active duty officers, NONE of which had commanded a division prior to WWII (look at the hit list of fired division commanders in 1941-1944--it is astonishing the sheer ineptitude at this level). By 1944 we had 8.3 million in uniform, a 44-fold increase. 360,000 Union dead in the civil war. 126,000 dead in WWI. 416,000 killed in WWII. The whole point of a trained and ready military is that it is capable of rapidly achieving overwhelming force and decisive victory. The quick defeat of the Taliban and the run up to Baghdad are prime examples. What we didn't retain from Vietnam is how to fight a counter-insurgency, but after 10 years of experience, we are actually pretty good at it. Watch: the next draw down will gut our trained and capable leaders, and we will have to learn these lessons all over again, at great cost in blood and treasure. I for one think a few extra flights of UH-60's over my house at night are worth it.
Posted by
shearmodulus
on January 31, 2012 at 5:31 PM
@shearmodulus
Agree. I'm not arguing against the CAB that's due here. Given the lead time to build helo's and train crews, I'd rather have that unit in-place and give up an infantry brigade to budget cuts, as infantry brigades are a capability we can create and field much quicker than a CAB.
Your comments support my own thinking that we can't afford a Ron Paul foreign policy of bringing our troops home from OCONUS, their presence out there is a bargain, a sunk cost for maintaining a moderating influence that saves a fortune versus what combat would cost.
Where I think we went so very wrong after Vietnam was the Church Commission that gutted our CIA and intel efforts. We've got that back now and need to keep it.
Science has now given us individual bullets that are laser guided to their target. Such advances move us toward battlefields that are no longer meat grinders (for us) like WW-I and WW-II. Here's a link to the article: http://tinyurl.com/7q9am5t
We need to keep as many officers and senior enlisted types as we can, they are the real leaders who are critical to a successful and professional military.
Posted by
OldCrank
on January 31, 2012 at 7:48 PM
Science may have given us smart bombs, but the only truly "smart" weapon that can go into a village, talk to its leaders, convince them to support the military's efforts in their region is the U.S. Soldier. Drone strikes may give us standoff capability, but they're probably creating more terrorists than they are killing. This has been argued consistently by the CIA/DNI and CJCS for quite some time now. It has a role, but any time you pull a trigger, you generally create more problems than you solve. You don't get that experience and leadership capability shining a seat at the Pentagon. You get it out in the field. If you cut ground troops, you stand a good chance of drastically reducing that skill and understanding at the highest echelons because of the pyramid effect of the military structures and promotion systems. This is why every 4-star general had to start at the bottom and work his/her way up. You can't hire a military CEO off the street, just as we learned in every major american war since the Revolution. The military profession takes a lifetime of study and application to master, even more true in today's complex world and military. If you want amateurs doing your fighting, don't be surprised when you lose or end up going 13 rounds instead of 1.
Posted by
shearmodulus
on February 1, 2012 at 8:08 AM
@shearmodulus
Agree that boots on the ground can be essential, primarily for purely objective military rationale, that being to destroy the enemy's ability to conduct warfare and to take his ground. Beyond that, using our troops for purposes of nation-building, running schools, etc, seems like a mis-use of their capabilities.
Still, after ten years of boots on the ground in Afghanistan I'm not sure if we've won many hearts and minds of the Afghan people, especially in rural areas.
I've always wondered if our soldiers should be nation-builders, if nation-building is something we should even attempt, and our hats are off to our soldiers for their incredible efforts over there. But still, it seems contrived to remake or change other nations; for who are we to decide what others should be or how their governance should be constructed. It seems that it's up to those other nations to change themselves, perhaps best done via market forces like the free enterprise search for raw materials that is usually step one on the road from primitive to emerging to developing and hopefully to first world status. Otherwise, let them alone and live in their primitive ways. We've essentially killed all the Al Queda types we were after, and changing focus to destroying the Taliban means we'll be there probably forever.
In fact, I found this article today that sounds gloomy about the future of Afghanistan:
http://tinyurl.com/85x2zte
Who knows where all this will end up, but IMO we've done 95% of what we set out to do, and it seems time to come home so we can re-fit and re-train for whatever is next, and that includes bringing the CAB here and getting them trained. And a well-deserved rest for all of our personnel.
Posted by
OldCrank
on February 1, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Pinon Canyon isn't about supporting the troops; everyone in Southern Colorado supports a strong military. In fact, most of our families have numerous veterans in them. What we don't support is the lack of accountability on the part of a military that over reaches and never turns down an opportunity to expand--the kind of super military that Eisenhower warned us to beware of. Every branch of the government including the military (i.e. the Pentagon) needs to be accountable to its citizens. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we need to be wiser about how we spend money on training our troops and better utilize the resources we already have, especially the land and/or bases already in place. Additionally, it is a lack of understanding to say that the "desolate" land in Southern Colorado is not of value as it is just because it doesn't have the same uses as the extremely congested areas along the front range. It is an environmentally fragile area, easily damaged due to its very shallow top soil (in places no deeper than 2", hence "short grass prairie") and other factors, such as lower precipitation. What it is suited for, it is presently being used for, and that is agriculture, especially grazing, which has a minimal impact. Some of the land used by the military on Pinon Canyon has already sustained significant damage. It should be noted that the Dust Bowl was so severe in Southern Colorado not because it didn't rain at all during that time, but because the top soil was gone, and the top soil was gone because the grassland was destroyed. Back then it was destroyed by small tractors and plows pulled by mules or horses; how much more damage will a larger military presence do given the nature of the equipment and repetitive training exercises on fragile ground? This is about wisdom, not about patriotism.
Posted by
Jane Jacobson
on February 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM
