Well, don’t we have an Army to combat pollution?

Army drops some environmental protections

The Army has instructed commanders to cancel some environment-friendly programs and cut temp workers in order to save money during the war.

“This is an order to base commanders authorizing pollution of American soil when it saves money,” PEER’s executive director, Jeff Ruch, said of Aadland’s use of the phrase ’take additional risk.’

“Protecting America’s land, air and water is not a secondary mission that should be shirked when budgets get tight,” Ruch said.

Did I read that right? “Protecting America’s land, air and water is not a secondary mission”? Ruch doesn’t think protecting America’s land, air, and water is a mission secondary to protecting America’s soldiers and America’s citizens? He really didn’t mean that, did he?

Now, I’m all for protecting the environment, and there’s no doubt that big entities like the US Army need to be more careful about what they do to it. We all have to live here.

But let’s get a little perspective here, boys and girls. There’s no estimate in the story of how much money can be saved by temporarily cutting some programs, but Interceptor Body Armor costs about $1500 per copy. Where should the Army’s priorities be?

MO mentioned in January that the Sierra Club is opposing the deployment of Strykers to Hawaii due to environmental concerns. While I think the Army should take the Sierra Clubs concerns into consideration when designing the training programs for the unit, if the Army thinks we need Strykers in Hawaii, then put the Strykers in Hawaii. I don’t want the Army’s ability to perform its mission jeopardized in any way. Even if it means tearing up some trees or harming nesting territory of some rare bird.

I know that a lot of people either don’t realize it or elect to ignore it, but our nation is at war. Let’s take care of our people first. After we win? Then let’s take care of our birds.