Military mop-up.

• Author: Renner, Michael
• Position: Environmental degradation - Includes related article

THE U.S. MILITARY DOESN'T WANT ANY MORE ROCKY FLATS OR CORNHUSKER COVERUPS. IT' CLEANING HOUSE, AND CLAIMS TO HAVE UNDERGONE A "CULTURE CHANGE."

At a community hearing in the mid-1980s, when civilian neighbors of a U.S. military base in Virginia complained that toxic waste from the facility was contaminating their groundwater, the base commander quickly set them straight about his priorities.

"We are in the business of protecting the nation, not the environment," he told them.

His comment may have been well-meaning, and he probably had little inkling that within the next few years such statements would begin to sound sadly--perhaps recklessly--naive. Today, there is growing recognition that one of the best way to protect a nation is to protect its environment--not only because certain kinds of environmental threats can cause offending military bases to be shut down, but because pervasive environmental degradation can weaken society as surely as foreign aggression can.

As a researcher with some experience in military issues, however, I know how easy it is to underestimate the tenacity of military officers; if their trainin is never to give up ground, how readily will they give up old beliefs? Last spring, along with representatives of several environmental organizations, I visited three military bases to find out how well today's armed forces are attuned to the changing meaning of "security" in a world where the greatest threats may no longer be weapons, but crippling shortages of food, water, or protections against disease.

My foray might have been impossible in the Cold War 80s, but by 1994, prioritie had clearly begun to shift. Three years earlier, the U.S. Congress had established a new body, the Legacy Resource Management Program, to support innovative projects that protect natural, cultural, and historic resources unde the Department of Defense's management. That body, in turn, had made it possibl for several interested civilian groups--including World Watch--to visit various Navy, Army, and Air Force bases and observe the changes taking place in the military's stewardship of the land. In the United States, the military occupies about 200,000 square kilometers--a territory larger than the states of New York New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts combined. As a World Watch representative, I visited three bases, and made the following observations.

First, the mere fact that such an endeavor was even initiated signals that change is afoot at the Department of Defense. Virtually every U.S. military bas harbors soil or groundwater contamination, and for many years the Pentagon trie to hide these problems behind a smokescreen of "national security." The government applied the doctrine of "sovereign immunity" to exempt military facilities from compliance with environmental laws, and to prevent any effectiv public oversight. Throughout the country, communities in the shadows of nearby bases grew increasingly nervous about soil and water contamination believed to be emanating from behind--or beneath--the fenced-off facilities. Community activists and state regulators often found themselves at an impasse with base officials.

Change has been slow in coming. As far back as 1978, President Carter signed an Executive Order demanding that all U.S. federal facilities comply with environmental laws. But the Reagan administration, giving unquestioned priority to its military buildup, effectively blocked the Environmental Protection Agenc (EPA) from enforcing the law.

A more serious effort was begun under President Bush's Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney. In late 1989, Cheney launched a "Defense and the Environment Initiative," and directed the Pentagon to "be the Federal leader in agency environmental compliance and protection." Arguing that this was "the surest way to maintain our access to the air, land, and water we need to maintain and improve our mission capability," Cheney was no doubt thinking of the fate that had befallen Rocky Flats and other nuclear weapons plants under the Department of Energy's purview, that had been shut down due to massive environmental abuses.

The Clinton Administration took further steps in 1993, establishing formal procedures for cleaning up arms production facilities and military bases throughout the country.

However, important as goal-setting is at the top, it does not automatically change the ways of an organization as bureaucratically stolid and huge as the Department of Defense. Although one might expect that the military's basic operating principle--passing orders down the chain of command--should make the implementation of environmental policies a fairly straightforward affair, the reality is otherwise. In the end, what happens at each base is as important as what happens in the Pentagon.

The U.S. brass are not alone in their dawning realization that it is not just enemy guns that they need to worry about. All over the world, generals are boun to awaken--sooner or later--to the realization that they are sitting atop time...