We're assured by U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn that the possible addition of a new aviation brigade at Fort Carson isn't in any way contingent on the future expansion of the Pinon Canyon training area -- at least that's the official line coming from the Pentagon. But one can't help wonder, and worry a little, about whether the anti-Army venom that has come to taint so much of the rhetoric from expansion opponents won't in this case come back to haunt Colorado.
I'm not sure how much controversy relocation of the brigade will stir in Tacoma, Washington, where Joint Base Lewis-McChord is also in the running to serve as host. I'm betting an influx of nearly 3,000 new soldiers will be met with cheers, parades and keys to the city. But here in southern Colorado, the polarizing nature of the Pinon Canyon debate, and the increasingly anti-Army tone it has assumed, could tilt the competition in Tacoma's favor.
No one at the Pentagon will say this. If Joint Base Lewis-McChord wins the competition, it will do so based strictly on the merits, or so military officials will tell us. But you can bet that what's been going on out here -- including local opposition to the brigade from Colorado Springs peace activists -- hasn't gone unnoticed in Washington. Some military brass undoubtedly are wondering how once-welcoming Southern Colorado became such hostile territory. Such noisy opposition, even if it's the minority view, can't help but raise yellow flags, which will only increase our vulnerability when the next round of base closures and realignments comes along.
If you were making the call, and everything else was equal, wouldn't you send the soldiers where you know they'll be unconditionally welcomed? Why would you send more soldiers to a training facility of limited future utility?
Of course, not everyone who's anti-expansion is anti-Army. But the willingness of certain leaders to tolerate (and pander to) the increasingly-militant, anti-Army rhetoric of Pinon Canyon protesters isn't improving Fort Carson's chances of landing the new brigade. Our cause isn't helped by the fact that so many of Colorado's senior leaders (including Senators Udall and Bennet and U.S. Rep. John Salazar) have closed minds concerning Pinon Canyon expansion. It's a reminder of how irresponsible and reckless rhetoric, employed for short-term political gain, can do real and lasting harm.
Showing posts with label Fort Carson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fort Carson. Show all posts
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Proper Care and Feeding of Politicians
When the puppy does the trick, the puppy gets a treat. The training of most politicians is no different.
Third District Rep. John Salazar last week went out and made his annual show of cutting-off funding for any study of Fort Carson expansion, declaring that it will never happen while he's in Congress. And for performing this annual trick he gets a treat: a nice pat on the head from the editorial page of The Pueblo Chieftain, whose guiding philosophy on this and all other issues is that if it can benefit Colorado Springs, it must be bad.
Atta boy, Fido. Now lay down and roll over.
Third District Rep. John Salazar last week went out and made his annual show of cutting-off funding for any study of Fort Carson expansion, declaring that it will never happen while he's in Congress. And for performing this annual trick he gets a treat: a nice pat on the head from the editorial page of The Pueblo Chieftain, whose guiding philosophy on this and all other issues is that if it can benefit Colorado Springs, it must be bad.
Atta boy, Fido. Now lay down and roll over.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Pyrrhic "Victories"
Bowing to pressure from Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet and others, the U.S. Army will decline to appeal a court ruling that has the potential to curtail training activities at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. It's a decision that could come back to haunt Colorado, and Colorado Springs especially, the next time a commission is asked to close bases or downsize America's military footprint.
The rancher-activists who brought this suit -- which deals not with the proposed expansion, but with operations at the existing site -- are gleefully waiving their cowboy hats and yelping "yippee." "We keep winning all the battles (with the Army) but it's the war over Pinon Canyon that we're worried about," one of their leaders told the Chieftain. But the "victories" will be Pyrrhic if this lawsuit and all the continued (at this point, manufactured) controversy over expansion destroys Fort Carson's value and standing as a training facility, making it vulnerable to downsizing or eventual disappearance.
It was one thing to fight expansion -- I actually had some sympathy for the ranchers back when this all began. But now the activists (who, like many of these types, become somewhat addicted to it) seem intent not just on blocking expansion but on curtailing training activities at the old site. That goes too far in my book. But rather than calling for some sort of cease-fire, or negotiating a compromise, supposed-leaders like Sen. Bennet chose to ride the anti-Army bandwagon, irresponsibly playing politics with the issue.
The Army may one day find more hospitable confines in which to train. And the activist-ranchers who turned the Army into the enemy will once again be able to use these supposedly-precious lands for chasing cattle. They can continue living out a 19th Century lifestyle in splendid isolation, and economic stagnation, unfettered by modern intrusions or inconveniences, like having to ready fighting men and women for combat on an expanding battlefield.
They'll have won every battle against the Army -- but Colorado as a whole, and the readiness of U.S. fighting forces, will be the ultimate casualties.
The rancher-activists who brought this suit -- which deals not with the proposed expansion, but with operations at the existing site -- are gleefully waiving their cowboy hats and yelping "yippee." "We keep winning all the battles (with the Army) but it's the war over Pinon Canyon that we're worried about," one of their leaders told the Chieftain. But the "victories" will be Pyrrhic if this lawsuit and all the continued (at this point, manufactured) controversy over expansion destroys Fort Carson's value and standing as a training facility, making it vulnerable to downsizing or eventual disappearance.
It was one thing to fight expansion -- I actually had some sympathy for the ranchers back when this all began. But now the activists (who, like many of these types, become somewhat addicted to it) seem intent not just on blocking expansion but on curtailing training activities at the old site. That goes too far in my book. But rather than calling for some sort of cease-fire, or negotiating a compromise, supposed-leaders like Sen. Bennet chose to ride the anti-Army bandwagon, irresponsibly playing politics with the issue.
The Army may one day find more hospitable confines in which to train. And the activist-ranchers who turned the Army into the enemy will once again be able to use these supposedly-precious lands for chasing cattle. They can continue living out a 19th Century lifestyle in splendid isolation, and economic stagnation, unfettered by modern intrusions or inconveniences, like having to ready fighting men and women for combat on an expanding battlefield.
They'll have won every battle against the Army -- but Colorado as a whole, and the readiness of U.S. fighting forces, will be the ultimate casualties.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Why Fear the Black-Footed Ferret?
I’ve written before about what a mistake I think it is for Fort Carson to volunteer as a testing ground for the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets. I have nothing against ferrets, per se. They seem cuddly and adorable – unless you’re a prairie dog. I just believe American military bases have enough trouble with so-called “encroachment issues” – restrictions on training activities resulting from excessive environmental rules or complaints from NIMBYs – that they shouldn’t invite more of it. That’s exactly what Fort Carson is doing in this case.
Establishing a ferret colony at Fort Carson is just the sort of heart-warming story that earns the base brownie points with animal advocates and environmentalists. It’s good PR. They may rain fire and death on America's enemies, but hey, they're nice to animals. But I fear it will come back to bite the base on the ass if the animals living in this and other experimental colonies win listing as endangered species.
With a listing comes more regulation. With more federal regulation comes restrictions on training. Restrictions on training make bases less useful. Less useful bases end up on closure lists. Closed bases aren’t good for the local economy.
Follow my logic? Folks at Fort Carson obviously don’t.
But maybe this story in the Sept. 8 Billings Gazette will help them see the long-term implications of that they're doing. Here's an excerpt:
Three groups ask feds to protect reintroduced ferrets
CHEYENNE - Three environmental groups say they are petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect reintroduced populations of black-footed ferrets as endangered.
The federal government already protects black-footed ferrets as an endangered species. But it's a Catch-22: The protection doesn't apply to 17 reintroduced ferret populations in eight states, which are the only black-footed ferrets known to exist in the wild.
Instead of being endangered, they are considered "nonessential experimental" populations.
The groups WildEarth Guardians, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and Center for Native Ecosystems want three black-footed ferret populations - in western Arizona's Aubrey Valley, southwestern South Dakota's Conata Basin and southeast Wyoming's Shirley Basin - designated as endangered. The groups announced Tuesday that they had submitted an endangered species petition to the Fish and Wildlife Service . . .
. . . . Black-footed ferrets were believed to be extinct in the wild until a population turned up in Wyoming in 1981. The 18 animals remaining in that population soon were rounded up for a captive-breeding program.
Fish and Wildlife began releasing captive-bred ferrets in Wyoming's Shirley Basin in 1991. Subsequent populations have been established in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Kansas, South Dakota and Utah.
But only the Arizona, South Dakota and Wyoming populations in the endangered species petition are considered viable, said Erik Molvar, with the Laramie-based Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.”
Fort Carson’s ferret colony isn’t one of the “nonessential experimental” populations the groups want listed, so the base is in no great danger at the moment. But if this lawsuit succeeds, and if Fort Carson ferrets flourish, it won’t be too long before environmental groups are suing to have this colony listed too. That’s not necessarily the end of the world. A number of military facilities continue to function with endangered species on base. But the work-arounds can be costly and the encumbrances can be significant. It’s not something any base would want, much less invite.
It’s a little dated, but here’s a piece I did on the encroachment problem at American military bases back in 2001: link. I think it’s safe to assume things have gotten worse since then. Endangered Species Act rules have become a nightmarish fact of live at many facilities. But this is the first time I’ve seen a base actually courting such problems, thanks to such a stunning lack of foresight.
As the case of the Canada lynx shows, there’s a game of bait-and-switch being played when it comes to experimental populations of endangered species. The federal government promises that the normal regulations and regulations won’t apply at the time of reintroduction. But once the animals are established, and the listing petitions and lawsuits start flying, such agreements aren’t worth bupkis. Colorado agreed to host an experimental population of Canada Lynx back in the Bill Owens era, based on assurances that a tidal wave of new rules wouldn’t follow. But today you have “lynx habitat” being used by federal agencies as a reason to limit ski resort expansions and stop forest thinning projects. The old promises mean nothing. Colorado is being punished for showing the lynx a little compassion.
If Fort Carson commanders are smart, if folks in the Pentagon are smart, they’ll start looking for reasons to quietly back away from this animal rescue mission, which is unrelated and potentially detrimental to the facility’s main purpose. There are better places to put ferret colonies. And there are better uses for military bases.
Establishing a ferret colony at Fort Carson is just the sort of heart-warming story that earns the base brownie points with animal advocates and environmentalists. It’s good PR. They may rain fire and death on America's enemies, but hey, they're nice to animals. But I fear it will come back to bite the base on the ass if the animals living in this and other experimental colonies win listing as endangered species.
With a listing comes more regulation. With more federal regulation comes restrictions on training. Restrictions on training make bases less useful. Less useful bases end up on closure lists. Closed bases aren’t good for the local economy.
Follow my logic? Folks at Fort Carson obviously don’t.
But maybe this story in the Sept. 8 Billings Gazette will help them see the long-term implications of that they're doing. Here's an excerpt:
Three groups ask feds to protect reintroduced ferrets
CHEYENNE - Three environmental groups say they are petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect reintroduced populations of black-footed ferrets as endangered.
The federal government already protects black-footed ferrets as an endangered species. But it's a Catch-22: The protection doesn't apply to 17 reintroduced ferret populations in eight states, which are the only black-footed ferrets known to exist in the wild.
Instead of being endangered, they are considered "nonessential experimental" populations.
The groups WildEarth Guardians, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and Center for Native Ecosystems want three black-footed ferret populations - in western Arizona's Aubrey Valley, southwestern South Dakota's Conata Basin and southeast Wyoming's Shirley Basin - designated as endangered. The groups announced Tuesday that they had submitted an endangered species petition to the Fish and Wildlife Service . . .
. . . . Black-footed ferrets were believed to be extinct in the wild until a population turned up in Wyoming in 1981. The 18 animals remaining in that population soon were rounded up for a captive-breeding program.
Fish and Wildlife began releasing captive-bred ferrets in Wyoming's Shirley Basin in 1991. Subsequent populations have been established in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Kansas, South Dakota and Utah.
But only the Arizona, South Dakota and Wyoming populations in the endangered species petition are considered viable, said Erik Molvar, with the Laramie-based Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.”
Fort Carson’s ferret colony isn’t one of the “nonessential experimental” populations the groups want listed, so the base is in no great danger at the moment. But if this lawsuit succeeds, and if Fort Carson ferrets flourish, it won’t be too long before environmental groups are suing to have this colony listed too. That’s not necessarily the end of the world. A number of military facilities continue to function with endangered species on base. But the work-arounds can be costly and the encumbrances can be significant. It’s not something any base would want, much less invite.
It’s a little dated, but here’s a piece I did on the encroachment problem at American military bases back in 2001: link. I think it’s safe to assume things have gotten worse since then. Endangered Species Act rules have become a nightmarish fact of live at many facilities. But this is the first time I’ve seen a base actually courting such problems, thanks to such a stunning lack of foresight.
As the case of the Canada lynx shows, there’s a game of bait-and-switch being played when it comes to experimental populations of endangered species. The federal government promises that the normal regulations and regulations won’t apply at the time of reintroduction. But once the animals are established, and the listing petitions and lawsuits start flying, such agreements aren’t worth bupkis. Colorado agreed to host an experimental population of Canada Lynx back in the Bill Owens era, based on assurances that a tidal wave of new rules wouldn’t follow. But today you have “lynx habitat” being used by federal agencies as a reason to limit ski resort expansions and stop forest thinning projects. The old promises mean nothing. Colorado is being punished for showing the lynx a little compassion.
If Fort Carson commanders are smart, if folks in the Pentagon are smart, they’ll start looking for reasons to quietly back away from this animal rescue mission, which is unrelated and potentially detrimental to the facility’s main purpose. There are better places to put ferret colonies. And there are better uses for military bases.
Friday, June 19, 2009
A Skirmish Won on Pinon Canyon
It seems a minor victory, coming as it does after a long series of stinging defeats, but U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn this week thwarted another attempt by U.S. Rep. John Salazar (of Colorado's 3rd District) to close off options for Fort Carson expansion at the Pinon Canyon training site. The proposal is on life support, after being battered by bad PR and a series of legislative setbacks, including some delivered by Gov. Bill Ritter and other Colorado political "leaders." But Lamborn deserves credit for outmaneuvering Salazar's latest anti-expansion efforts in the House -- and doing so even while Salazar was gleefully boasting to area newspapers about what a breeze it was driving another stake in Pinon Canyon's heart (for which he received a nice pat on the head from the usual quarters).
Three versions of events were published Thursday, in The Gazette, the Pueblo Chieftain and The Denver Post. A complete picture of what went down is best gleaned by reading all three.
The Post story is particularly interesting, though, because it has Salazar trying to make a virtue out of defeat by saying that he’s done waging war on the expansion concept, at least for now. It verges on an admission that he and other expansion opponents are engaging in overkill. But that attitude only emerged after Lamborn outflanked Salazar’s latest assassination attempt, by changing minds and votes on a key committee at the 11th hour.
The Post:
"Given that the Army already can't expand without lots of money approved by Congress, Salazar decided there were enough restrictions in place that for now he will no longer push the legislative ban.
"At the end of day, we have concluded that Pi�on Canyon is off the table for the foreseeable future," said Eric Wortman, Salazar's spokesman, noting that Salazar can continue to deny funding for the expansion through his spot on the House Appropriations Committee.
"It is what John wanted all along — for everyone to take a timeout," Wortman said."
It's dishonest to say Salazar is seeking a "timeout." He's on record as wanting to permanently kill the idea. He's on record saying that it would never happen while he's in Congress (something that hopefully can be changed in the next few years). And he was out in the media, boasting about his latest victory against the Army, even before it was a done deal. Lamborn's last-minute counteroffensive left him with egg on his face.
Realizing that The Denver Post story would raise the hackles of the "ranchers"-turned-activists who have turned the expansion proposal into a cause celebre, by claiming, hysterically, that it's part of a secret plot to kill cow culture in Southeastern Colorado, Salazar scrambled to maintain his hard-line credentials, generating this story in today's Pueblo Chieftain. Salazar had his staff crank-out a strong anti-Pinon Canyon statement after the Post reported he was showing a reasonable side. "The fight to permanently end expansion may be a long one, however, for as long as I serve in Congress, I will fight any effort to advance an expansion of Pinon Canyon," it said in part.
So the promised cease fire was just a false hope. The pandering must go on.
Lamborn took some heat after a similar Salazar amendment passed by a significant margin last year. Local critics often point to that vote as evidence that Lamborn's ineffectual in defending the district’s interest. But this time he worked the issue hard and won, which wouldn’t have happened unless he changed Democrat votes on the committee. Once a majority of committee members really understood the issue, and understood that continually lobbing mortar rounds at Fort Carson was not only gratuitous but could do lasting damage to this state’s economy and relations with the Pentagon, reason thankfully prevailed. Lamborn deserves credit for pulling this off.
This isn’t some tipping point, that will turn the tide of political or public opinion in favor of at least giving Fort Carson expansion a fair hearing. That's still a long shot, in my view, given the political forces arrayed against it. It's one minor skirmish won in a war that's probably lost. But it gives one a glimmer of hope that we'll perhaps see an end to the gratuitous hammering away at the issue, and at the Army, for hammering's sake, by short-sighted politicos hoping to score points with the vocal minority of Coloradans who have dominated the debate.
This demagoguery already has cost the state money and soldiers. And it has the potential to do even more harm in the future, if extreme actions and rhetoric (which Radio host Mike Rosen addresses in today's Pueblo Chieftain) continue to win the battle over reasoned debate.
Three versions of events were published Thursday, in The Gazette, the Pueblo Chieftain and The Denver Post. A complete picture of what went down is best gleaned by reading all three.
The Post story is particularly interesting, though, because it has Salazar trying to make a virtue out of defeat by saying that he’s done waging war on the expansion concept, at least for now. It verges on an admission that he and other expansion opponents are engaging in overkill. But that attitude only emerged after Lamborn outflanked Salazar’s latest assassination attempt, by changing minds and votes on a key committee at the 11th hour.
The Post:
"Given that the Army already can't expand without lots of money approved by Congress, Salazar decided there were enough restrictions in place that for now he will no longer push the legislative ban.
"At the end of day, we have concluded that Pi�on Canyon is off the table for the foreseeable future," said Eric Wortman, Salazar's spokesman, noting that Salazar can continue to deny funding for the expansion through his spot on the House Appropriations Committee.
"It is what John wanted all along — for everyone to take a timeout," Wortman said."
It's dishonest to say Salazar is seeking a "timeout." He's on record as wanting to permanently kill the idea. He's on record saying that it would never happen while he's in Congress (something that hopefully can be changed in the next few years). And he was out in the media, boasting about his latest victory against the Army, even before it was a done deal. Lamborn's last-minute counteroffensive left him with egg on his face.
Realizing that The Denver Post story would raise the hackles of the "ranchers"-turned-activists who have turned the expansion proposal into a cause celebre, by claiming, hysterically, that it's part of a secret plot to kill cow culture in Southeastern Colorado, Salazar scrambled to maintain his hard-line credentials, generating this story in today's Pueblo Chieftain. Salazar had his staff crank-out a strong anti-Pinon Canyon statement after the Post reported he was showing a reasonable side. "The fight to permanently end expansion may be a long one, however, for as long as I serve in Congress, I will fight any effort to advance an expansion of Pinon Canyon," it said in part.
So the promised cease fire was just a false hope. The pandering must go on.
Lamborn took some heat after a similar Salazar amendment passed by a significant margin last year. Local critics often point to that vote as evidence that Lamborn's ineffectual in defending the district’s interest. But this time he worked the issue hard and won, which wouldn’t have happened unless he changed Democrat votes on the committee. Once a majority of committee members really understood the issue, and understood that continually lobbing mortar rounds at Fort Carson was not only gratuitous but could do lasting damage to this state’s economy and relations with the Pentagon, reason thankfully prevailed. Lamborn deserves credit for pulling this off.
This isn’t some tipping point, that will turn the tide of political or public opinion in favor of at least giving Fort Carson expansion a fair hearing. That's still a long shot, in my view, given the political forces arrayed against it. It's one minor skirmish won in a war that's probably lost. But it gives one a glimmer of hope that we'll perhaps see an end to the gratuitous hammering away at the issue, and at the Army, for hammering's sake, by short-sighted politicos hoping to score points with the vocal minority of Coloradans who have dominated the debate.
This demagoguery already has cost the state money and soldiers. And it has the potential to do even more harm in the future, if extreme actions and rhetoric (which Radio host Mike Rosen addresses in today's Pueblo Chieftain) continue to win the battle over reasoned debate.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Bill Ritter Frags Fort Carson
Bill Ritter flunked the "governorship test" Tuesday, when he signed a bill that bars the state of Colorado from leasing or selling state land for the future expansion of Fort Carson. It shows that he'll never evolve beyond the pupal stage of political development, because he's incapable of making a decision that's politically risky, in a partisan sense, but the right thing to do for the state as a whole. Choosing what's right for the whole over what's smart politically is the ultimate test of governorship, of "statesmanship." It's what separates the bona fide "leader" from the political climber. And Ritter just can't make the transition, as this signature shows.
This won't necessarily cost Ritter the governor's job. Plenty of garden variety politicos can rise through the ranks, if individuals with more integrity, more courage and a bigger vision don't step up to challenge them. But it does open another avenue of attack, and point of contrast, for Republicans in the state, if they can pull it together and take advantage of such missteps.
It's clearly a betrayal of Ritter's Inauguration Day pledge to represent the interests of all Coloradans, not just those who voted for him. And it lends a hollow ring to words he spoke only a few weeks ago, when he was asked about the hand-stenciled signs that have been popping up along I-25, asking "Why does Ritter Hate El Paso County?" "I'll put my attention that I've paid to El Paso County against any governor in my lifetime," Ritter bragged to The Gazette. "Every part of the state matters and counts. And it doesn't matter to me what the vote is."
This signature indicates otherwise, Governor.
I've already explained the political calculus behind Ritter's decision, here and here. No point in repeating myself. But some parts of the state clearly matter more to the governor than others. Paso County is expendable because our voter rolls are heavily Republican and he has little to lose by giving us the shaft. The governor was warned that endorsing this gratuitous slap at the Pentagon could put Fort Carson at risk, by sending anti-military signals back to Washington. The possible repercussions were made clear to him -- here, here and here -- in time to have drawn a veto. But he signed the bill anyway, even as the potential fallout was beginning to be felt.
There's no way to describe this but "reckless." It's something the governor should be reminded of each time he comes to town. And if Republicans can't use this to their advantage, when the next election season rolls around, they really are beyond hope.
U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, who fought valiantly to keep Fort Carson's options open, has a typically-forceful piece on the subject in today's Denver Post. I recommend reading it -- and filing it away, against the day that Bill Ritter comes calling, asking for our votes.
This won't necessarily cost Ritter the governor's job. Plenty of garden variety politicos can rise through the ranks, if individuals with more integrity, more courage and a bigger vision don't step up to challenge them. But it does open another avenue of attack, and point of contrast, for Republicans in the state, if they can pull it together and take advantage of such missteps.
It's clearly a betrayal of Ritter's Inauguration Day pledge to represent the interests of all Coloradans, not just those who voted for him. And it lends a hollow ring to words he spoke only a few weeks ago, when he was asked about the hand-stenciled signs that have been popping up along I-25, asking "Why does Ritter Hate El Paso County?" "I'll put my attention that I've paid to El Paso County against any governor in my lifetime," Ritter bragged to The Gazette. "Every part of the state matters and counts. And it doesn't matter to me what the vote is."
This signature indicates otherwise, Governor.
I've already explained the political calculus behind Ritter's decision, here and here. No point in repeating myself. But some parts of the state clearly matter more to the governor than others. Paso County is expendable because our voter rolls are heavily Republican and he has little to lose by giving us the shaft. The governor was warned that endorsing this gratuitous slap at the Pentagon could put Fort Carson at risk, by sending anti-military signals back to Washington. The possible repercussions were made clear to him -- here, here and here -- in time to have drawn a veto. But he signed the bill anyway, even as the potential fallout was beginning to be felt.
There's no way to describe this but "reckless." It's something the governor should be reminded of each time he comes to town. And if Republicans can't use this to their advantage, when the next election season rolls around, they really are beyond hope.
U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, who fought valiantly to keep Fort Carson's options open, has a typically-forceful piece on the subject in today's Denver Post. I recommend reading it -- and filing it away, against the day that Bill Ritter comes calling, asking for our votes.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Kudos to Coffman
U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman is a Marine, not U.S. Army. His congressional district is in the Denver area, not Colorado Springs. That means he easily could have ducked out of the donnybrook over possible future expansion of the Piñon Canyon training site, and side-stepped unnecessary controversy by remaining mute on the issue. That's something a typical politician would do.
But the former Colorado state treasurer can see far enough beyond purely parochial concerns to grasp the potential long-term implications for the country and the state if Gov. Bill Ritter signs HB-1317, a measure designed to drive another nail in the coffin of the expansion plan. The Marine in Coffman isn't afraid of a fight, even when the odds are stacked against him. His battle to keep Ritter from signing the bill shows that Coffman isn't your typical self-protective politician, but is willing to take the risks that come with showing real leadership. And it's something that those of us who aren't his constituents appreciate.
The Denver Post today has a write-up on Coffman's continuing fight against HB-1317. Unlike a few others in Colorado's congressional delegation, who either support the measure or are straddling on the issue, Coffman understands that the outright closure of Fort Carson isn't the only thing at stake, once the perception gets around that Colorado is unfriendly to the military. Here's the Post:
"The buzzards are already circling Fort Carson, a major employer in Colorado Springs, Coffman said.
At a recent Armed Services Committee hearing, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told Pentagon officials that his state would be happy to have the Army if Colorado doesn't want it, offering up an underused training area where "you would not be sued by private property owners."
While the Army has not publicly suggested it would downsize Fort Carson without the training area expansion, military officials privately told Coffman's staff that at least one brigade combat team is in jeopardy. Army officials have made similar, if less precise comments to other members of Colorado's delegation, congressional staff say.
Any decision to downsize the base is likely years away, but Coffman said the Army's immediate plan to add another brigade to Fort Carson (1,920 troops) is more immediately at risk — especially if budget cuts reduce the number of brigades the Army had planned to add at all bases by 2011 from a total of three to two or even one.
"If they don't do all three, which is likely, Colorado is not in the hunt," he said . . . .
. . . . . Publicly, the Army has said that the expanded training range is vital and still an important priority, though recently it shifted money to pay for the expansion in the Pentagon budget this year to another base in Louisiana.
Coffman said that any effort to downsize Fort Carson may not start with the Army at all, but with officials from other states, who could put together incentives to lure the brigades now stationed in Colorado, including promises to provide infrastructure.
And he said the Army's growing frustration with the political climate in Colorado could be decisive.
"I don't think that the Army will make the first move. It will be other members of Congress that take a look and see an anti-Army feeling among a lot of key elected officials" in Colorado, Coffman said.
"There is going to be blood in the water soon."
There's still an opportunity for Ritter to do the right thing, for Colorado and for the country, by vetoing the bill. That won't make expansion inevitable; that's still a long shot, in my view, considering the political forces arrayed against it. But it will send a signal back to Washington, and to out-of-state members of Congress, that Coloradans aren't taking their win-win partnership with the Pentagon for granted -- and that the rational people, not the radicals, are still in charge here.
But the former Colorado state treasurer can see far enough beyond purely parochial concerns to grasp the potential long-term implications for the country and the state if Gov. Bill Ritter signs HB-1317, a measure designed to drive another nail in the coffin of the expansion plan. The Marine in Coffman isn't afraid of a fight, even when the odds are stacked against him. His battle to keep Ritter from signing the bill shows that Coffman isn't your typical self-protective politician, but is willing to take the risks that come with showing real leadership. And it's something that those of us who aren't his constituents appreciate.
The Denver Post today has a write-up on Coffman's continuing fight against HB-1317. Unlike a few others in Colorado's congressional delegation, who either support the measure or are straddling on the issue, Coffman understands that the outright closure of Fort Carson isn't the only thing at stake, once the perception gets around that Colorado is unfriendly to the military. Here's the Post:
"The buzzards are already circling Fort Carson, a major employer in Colorado Springs, Coffman said.
At a recent Armed Services Committee hearing, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told Pentagon officials that his state would be happy to have the Army if Colorado doesn't want it, offering up an underused training area where "you would not be sued by private property owners."
While the Army has not publicly suggested it would downsize Fort Carson without the training area expansion, military officials privately told Coffman's staff that at least one brigade combat team is in jeopardy. Army officials have made similar, if less precise comments to other members of Colorado's delegation, congressional staff say.
Any decision to downsize the base is likely years away, but Coffman said the Army's immediate plan to add another brigade to Fort Carson (1,920 troops) is more immediately at risk — especially if budget cuts reduce the number of brigades the Army had planned to add at all bases by 2011 from a total of three to two or even one.
"If they don't do all three, which is likely, Colorado is not in the hunt," he said . . . .
. . . . . Publicly, the Army has said that the expanded training range is vital and still an important priority, though recently it shifted money to pay for the expansion in the Pentagon budget this year to another base in Louisiana.
Coffman said that any effort to downsize Fort Carson may not start with the Army at all, but with officials from other states, who could put together incentives to lure the brigades now stationed in Colorado, including promises to provide infrastructure.
And he said the Army's growing frustration with the political climate in Colorado could be decisive.
"I don't think that the Army will make the first move. It will be other members of Congress that take a look and see an anti-Army feeling among a lot of key elected officials" in Colorado, Coffman said.
"There is going to be blood in the water soon."
There's still an opportunity for Ritter to do the right thing, for Colorado and for the country, by vetoing the bill. That won't make expansion inevitable; that's still a long shot, in my view, considering the political forces arrayed against it. But it will send a signal back to Washington, and to out-of-state members of Congress, that Coloradans aren't taking their win-win partnership with the Pentagon for granted -- and that the rational people, not the radicals, are still in charge here.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Short Sighted and Self-Defeating
I imagine that a good number of Fort Carson personnel live in the Pueblo area. Many shop and eat and party there. Some may choose it as a retirement spot. That means Pueblo and Colorado Springs, those famously feuding cities, would seem to share a common interest in keeping the Mountain Post off future base closure lists, by supporting efforts to ensure it remains a viable training facility. So what, other than a belly full of anti-Colorado Springs bile, explains The Pueblo Chieftain editorial page's continuing efforts to cheer on the forces seeking to permanently slam the door on future expansion of the Pinon Canyon training site?
Colorado Springs and El Paso County obviously reap the greatest direct economic benefit from Fort Carson. But Pueblo, as close as it is, must also look at the base as an economic engine of importance -- not to mention a military asset of continuing value to the entire country. But the Chieftain, acting it seems out of blind spite for anything that might benefit Colorado Springs, has thrown in with those in Southern Colorado who began by expressing legitimate fears about the Army's use of eminent domain, but who have since adopted an angry, take-no-prisoners attitude, adamantly opposed to Pinon Canyon expansion under any circumstances.
The latest lashing-out at the U.S. Army wasn't a bill designed to restrict the use of eminent domain, but one aimed at blocking the state of Colorado from selling or leasing land to Fort Carson in the event that it had private parties willing to sell Fort Carson more acreage. That's a radical shift of emphasis from the issues that sparked this controversy, as the Denver Post's Vince Carroll pointed out a few days back. Opponents have continued shifting the goal posts, and re-casting their objections, and launching new attacks on a downsized and re-worked Army proposal, in what's morphed into a case of knee-jerk, anti-military obstructionism.
The Army hasn't completely giving up on expansion, reportedly. But its recent shifting of funds to another facility is one clear (and potentially ominous) signal that it will direct future resources to more hospitable places.
Perhaps The Chieftain and other expansion-bashers are delighted by the Army's retreat. Nothing short of a complete and unconditional surrender will satisfy some folks. But the gloating will end in Pueblo soon enough, if Carson's inability to train additional troops, and to provide adequate training space for the fighting force of the 21st and 22nd Century, land it on a future base closure list. The gloating will end when all those dollars and jobs go away.
It won't impact the ranchers-turned-activists down south. They're content living a 19th Century existence and don't want their little island of economic and cultural isolation disturbed. But Pueblo will feel the pain -- and perhaps come to regret the short-sighted, anti-military signals that the city's daily newspaper is sending out to the rest of the country.
Colorado dodged a bullet in the last base closure round. Carson was fortunate to actually benefit from the process. Yet Colorado showed little gratitude when the Army raised the possibility of expanding the training site to accommodate a bigger mission and more troops. What the Pentagon got in thanks was hostility, vilification, statehouse measures aimed at fragging the proposal -- what amounted to a rolling-up of the welcome mat in Colorado.
One can't help wonder whether folks back in Washington are having regrets about shifting additional assets to Carson in the last go-around. One can't help wonder if they're taking note of Colorado's anti-military attitudes. You can be sure that bases in more military-friendly states, and their representatives in Congress, are taking note.
They might even be clipping these Chieftain editorials for future reference.
Colorado Springs and El Paso County obviously reap the greatest direct economic benefit from Fort Carson. But Pueblo, as close as it is, must also look at the base as an economic engine of importance -- not to mention a military asset of continuing value to the entire country. But the Chieftain, acting it seems out of blind spite for anything that might benefit Colorado Springs, has thrown in with those in Southern Colorado who began by expressing legitimate fears about the Army's use of eminent domain, but who have since adopted an angry, take-no-prisoners attitude, adamantly opposed to Pinon Canyon expansion under any circumstances.
The latest lashing-out at the U.S. Army wasn't a bill designed to restrict the use of eminent domain, but one aimed at blocking the state of Colorado from selling or leasing land to Fort Carson in the event that it had private parties willing to sell Fort Carson more acreage. That's a radical shift of emphasis from the issues that sparked this controversy, as the Denver Post's Vince Carroll pointed out a few days back. Opponents have continued shifting the goal posts, and re-casting their objections, and launching new attacks on a downsized and re-worked Army proposal, in what's morphed into a case of knee-jerk, anti-military obstructionism.
The Army hasn't completely giving up on expansion, reportedly. But its recent shifting of funds to another facility is one clear (and potentially ominous) signal that it will direct future resources to more hospitable places.
Perhaps The Chieftain and other expansion-bashers are delighted by the Army's retreat. Nothing short of a complete and unconditional surrender will satisfy some folks. But the gloating will end in Pueblo soon enough, if Carson's inability to train additional troops, and to provide adequate training space for the fighting force of the 21st and 22nd Century, land it on a future base closure list. The gloating will end when all those dollars and jobs go away.
It won't impact the ranchers-turned-activists down south. They're content living a 19th Century existence and don't want their little island of economic and cultural isolation disturbed. But Pueblo will feel the pain -- and perhaps come to regret the short-sighted, anti-military signals that the city's daily newspaper is sending out to the rest of the country.
Colorado dodged a bullet in the last base closure round. Carson was fortunate to actually benefit from the process. Yet Colorado showed little gratitude when the Army raised the possibility of expanding the training site to accommodate a bigger mission and more troops. What the Pentagon got in thanks was hostility, vilification, statehouse measures aimed at fragging the proposal -- what amounted to a rolling-up of the welcome mat in Colorado.
One can't help wonder whether folks back in Washington are having regrets about shifting additional assets to Carson in the last go-around. One can't help wonder if they're taking note of Colorado's anti-military attitudes. You can be sure that bases in more military-friendly states, and their representatives in Congress, are taking note.
They might even be clipping these Chieftain editorials for future reference.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Politics of Pinon Canyon
I admire and applaud the last-ditch effort by some area officials (joined by former U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, who currently has his eye on the governor's job) to get Gov. Bill Ritter to veto HB -1317, a bill aimed at throwing up yet another hurdle to the possible future expansion of Fort Carson's Pinon Canyon training area. The arguments they make in favor of killing the bill -- as presented in today's Gazette -- are compelling. They echo many I made in this space not long ago.
But I would be amazed if Ritter showed the political fortitude and foresight required to veto the bill.
Though he was elected to represent the entire state, and though the entire state has an abiding interest in maintaining a strong partnership with the U.S. military, Ritter cares little about, and owes even less to, the Republican stronghold of El Paso County (which also happens to be where most of the state's military activity is centered). Vetoing the bill would not only draw fire from the virulently anti-Army drum-beaters in the ranching communities of Southern Colorado, and from statehouse Democrats who have demagogued the issue to death, but from the editorial page of The Pueblo Chieftain, which has egged-on the anti-Pinon Canyon crowd, if only because anything that benefits Colorado Springs must be bad.
Ritter draws a lot of votes from Pueblo. Therefore, he's loath to get crosswise with The Chieftain. And few Democrats in leadership positions (not the Salazar brothers, not Mark Udall, and certainly not anyone under the golden dome) have shown a willingness to counter the knee-jerk opposition to expansion coming from certain quarters. Plus, let's face it, a stubborn skepticism about the Army's plans undoubtedly plays well with two key Democrat Party constituencies, including environmentalists, who oppose real-world military training activities that interfere with butterflies and bunnies, and unreconstructed peaceniks, whose disdain for the military seems encoded in the party's DNA.
Cold, hard political calculus argues against Ritter vetoing the bill. That's why it's highly unlikely he'll do it. But it's good to lay down a marker on the issue now, and put the governor on the spot, since he's up for re-election in less than 2 years. McInnis is obviously gambling that Ritter's perceived indifference to Fort Carson's future, and to maintaining good relations with the military, could be a winning issue for him in 2010, at least here in El Paso County. And with Ritter's polling numbers suggesting vulnerability, perhaps he's on to something.
The question is how this issue translates, politically-speaking, beyond Southeastern Colorado, and whether McInnis can use it to paint Ritter as anti-military, and as indifferent to the economic benefits military bases bring to Colorado. But this has to at least give Ritter pause, before be blithely signs this terribly short-sighted piece of legislation.
But I would be amazed if Ritter showed the political fortitude and foresight required to veto the bill.
Though he was elected to represent the entire state, and though the entire state has an abiding interest in maintaining a strong partnership with the U.S. military, Ritter cares little about, and owes even less to, the Republican stronghold of El Paso County (which also happens to be where most of the state's military activity is centered). Vetoing the bill would not only draw fire from the virulently anti-Army drum-beaters in the ranching communities of Southern Colorado, and from statehouse Democrats who have demagogued the issue to death, but from the editorial page of The Pueblo Chieftain, which has egged-on the anti-Pinon Canyon crowd, if only because anything that benefits Colorado Springs must be bad.
Ritter draws a lot of votes from Pueblo. Therefore, he's loath to get crosswise with The Chieftain. And few Democrats in leadership positions (not the Salazar brothers, not Mark Udall, and certainly not anyone under the golden dome) have shown a willingness to counter the knee-jerk opposition to expansion coming from certain quarters. Plus, let's face it, a stubborn skepticism about the Army's plans undoubtedly plays well with two key Democrat Party constituencies, including environmentalists, who oppose real-world military training activities that interfere with butterflies and bunnies, and unreconstructed peaceniks, whose disdain for the military seems encoded in the party's DNA.
Cold, hard political calculus argues against Ritter vetoing the bill. That's why it's highly unlikely he'll do it. But it's good to lay down a marker on the issue now, and put the governor on the spot, since he's up for re-election in less than 2 years. McInnis is obviously gambling that Ritter's perceived indifference to Fort Carson's future, and to maintaining good relations with the military, could be a winning issue for him in 2010, at least here in El Paso County. And with Ritter's polling numbers suggesting vulnerability, perhaps he's on to something.
The question is how this issue translates, politically-speaking, beyond Southeastern Colorado, and whether McInnis can use it to paint Ritter as anti-military, and as indifferent to the economic benefits military bases bring to Colorado. But this has to at least give Ritter pause, before be blithely signs this terribly short-sighted piece of legislation.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Ferreting out Trouble
On the one hand, one has to wish the black-footed ferrets well that are being released into the wild on Fort Carson, in an innovative collaboration between the base, the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They're such cute little buggers. No one wants to see them go extinct.
But the success of the reintroduction program could become a nightmare for property owners, ranchers, local governments and the state of Colorado as a whole, if these ferret populations flourish and migrate beyond the base, given the regulatory controls and property rights violations that follow endangered species wherever they go. If the test colony survives on Fort Carson, the plan is to replicate the experiment elsewhere. "If successful, the release could be a blueprint for other locations on the Front Range and eastern plains," reports The Gazette. And once those populations are established, they'll need to be protected by a "critical habitat" designation and a host of land control regulations that come with it.
Such is the nature of the Endangered Species Act. And this will have profound implications for everyone living, and working the land, along the Front Range.
Colorado got sucked into a similar situation in the case of the Canada lynx. The state agreed years ago to host a reintroduction effort, which is ongoing, with the condition that the feds wouldn't bring the full weight of the ESA down on our heads if it worked. But once the cats, which had been erased from the state, were back, the rules of the game changed. The fact that Canada lynx are back in the state now becomes a factor in almost every U.S. Forest Service decision. Those wanting to block expansion of the ski area at Wolf Creek, for instance, or to dictate a host of other public lands decisions, can and will use the lynx as a pawn in that effort. Check out this story in today's Vail Daily. And one can predict a similar scenario unfolding in the case of the ferrets.
How might a growing population impact training at Fort Carson? What will it do to ranching on the eastern plains? How will it impact local land use rules along the fast-growing Front Range? All these issues need to be thought out and debated in advance, but they aren't. I follow these issues closely and this is the first I've heard of the black-footed ferret recolonization plan. It seems to have been hatched quietly, by a handful of government insiders. But the potential wider implications haven't been debated, and can't be well understood, by Coloradans as a whole.
Perhaps Fort Carson officials and folks at U.S. Fish and Wildlife have penned a memorandum of understanding -- at least I would hope they have -- ensuring that training can continue as usual, even if the base is crawling with ferrets. But what assurances do the rest of us have that doing the right thing now won't come back to haunt us in the future? None whatsoever.
And even if someone gave us such assurances, what faith could we have that they would be fulfilled, given that any such agreement could be taken to court and overturned by a judge, at the behest of the unreasonable people who use the ESA as a tool to curtail development, block water and energy projects, bludgeon property owners, etc.? Such guarantees aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
So while we should wish this experimental little colony of black-footed ferrets well, we should also monitor this effort closely, and with concern, given that no good deed goes unpunished under the ESA.
But the success of the reintroduction program could become a nightmare for property owners, ranchers, local governments and the state of Colorado as a whole, if these ferret populations flourish and migrate beyond the base, given the regulatory controls and property rights violations that follow endangered species wherever they go. If the test colony survives on Fort Carson, the plan is to replicate the experiment elsewhere. "If successful, the release could be a blueprint for other locations on the Front Range and eastern plains," reports The Gazette. And once those populations are established, they'll need to be protected by a "critical habitat" designation and a host of land control regulations that come with it.
Such is the nature of the Endangered Species Act. And this will have profound implications for everyone living, and working the land, along the Front Range.
Colorado got sucked into a similar situation in the case of the Canada lynx. The state agreed years ago to host a reintroduction effort, which is ongoing, with the condition that the feds wouldn't bring the full weight of the ESA down on our heads if it worked. But once the cats, which had been erased from the state, were back, the rules of the game changed. The fact that Canada lynx are back in the state now becomes a factor in almost every U.S. Forest Service decision. Those wanting to block expansion of the ski area at Wolf Creek, for instance, or to dictate a host of other public lands decisions, can and will use the lynx as a pawn in that effort. Check out this story in today's Vail Daily. And one can predict a similar scenario unfolding in the case of the ferrets.
How might a growing population impact training at Fort Carson? What will it do to ranching on the eastern plains? How will it impact local land use rules along the fast-growing Front Range? All these issues need to be thought out and debated in advance, but they aren't. I follow these issues closely and this is the first I've heard of the black-footed ferret recolonization plan. It seems to have been hatched quietly, by a handful of government insiders. But the potential wider implications haven't been debated, and can't be well understood, by Coloradans as a whole.
Perhaps Fort Carson officials and folks at U.S. Fish and Wildlife have penned a memorandum of understanding -- at least I would hope they have -- ensuring that training can continue as usual, even if the base is crawling with ferrets. But what assurances do the rest of us have that doing the right thing now won't come back to haunt us in the future? None whatsoever.
And even if someone gave us such assurances, what faith could we have that they would be fulfilled, given that any such agreement could be taken to court and overturned by a judge, at the behest of the unreasonable people who use the ESA as a tool to curtail development, block water and energy projects, bludgeon property owners, etc.? Such guarantees aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
So while we should wish this experimental little colony of black-footed ferrets well, we should also monitor this effort closely, and with concern, given that no good deed goes unpunished under the ESA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)