Re: time for environmentalists to become political - oppose war against Iraq

[Sam McClintock <scmcclintock@ipass.net>]

Jon Campbell wrote:

>      The Gulf War of 1991 caused massive environmental devastation on an
> unprecedented scale. The combination of oil fires, blazing factories, sewage
> and electrical plant destruction, use of uranium shells, and use of chemical
> agents (not weapons, per se, but pesticides) has caused damage to land, air,
> ecosystems, and people that has not really even been addressed.
>
>       And now it would seem that the Pres is considering another massive
> attack, supposedly over chemical and/or biological weaponry. I have not seen
> any data on whether the kinds of weapons that are allegedly targeted for
> destruction would cause any kind of ecological/environmental/health harm if
> they are burned or blown up. I have not seen any ecological impact statement
> at all.

(cc to Jon).  My two cents worth - I agree with you (Jon) in some ways on this,
but if you don't take into account the military attitude and the actual aspect
of the currently planned strikes - I think it may actually make the
environmental movement look a little silly.

I am not trying to downplay the amount of environmental damage that was done
during the Gulf War.  It was immense and horrific problem just considering the
oil field fires.  However, the tactics used by Iraq have been common for several
thousand years and won't change in the near future.  E.g. if you cannot control
a resource, you deny its use to the enemy.  And environmental damage to hinder
the enemy advance is also a common ploy.  Warfare has never been generous to the
environment - but it will remain a facet of human interaction for the next
century at least. The difference NOW is that those tactics have further reaching
impacts than ever before, chemical, biological, and culminating with the use of
nuclear weapons.

The amount of damage that occurs environmentally SHOULD give our leaders pause,
but it is rarely the factor that overwhelms that decision making process.  The
more common values of land, grievances, perception of threat, whatever, become
the deciding/dominating factors.  Failure to realize this may make the
environmentalist arguing his point appear naive.  Maybe the more correct tact is
to try to invoke environmental decision making into how key objectives are
planned and operations are executed?  Over the last decade, environmental
decision have hit the military like a brick in terms of base operations and
cleanup, and over things like protecting endangered species on posts (red
cockeyed woodpecker, etc).  The groundwork has been laid making the environment
part of the problem - can it be taken a step further?  Most military leaders of
today will balk big time over the very idea of adding another dimension to
tactical/strategic plans and operations.  But with a little luck, you may be
able to start the ball rolling towards some integration.  Impact statements?
Don't think that will ever happen.

As to the current plans of the USA, the amount of damage caused by the foreseen
air strikes will be considerably less than that excuted during the Gulf War.
Comparing the two will not make the environmentalist look educated in terms of
the extreme differences between reclaiming territory (Kuwait), major sorties of
air strikes over several months, a ground war, the Iraqis firing up oil wells
----- and the simple aspect of cruise missles and air strikes on key targets
over a few weeks that are planned now.  We are talking well over a order of
magnitude difference in the two scenarios.

There are sound environmental reasons to be against large-scale wars, there are
sound environmental reasons to be against biological and chemical warfare.  But
we are not planning either in this case - we are trying to discourage the
buildup of chemical/biological agents by one power that has already shown a will
to use them (against its own people no less).  Which devil to you want?  No one
wants a military strike - and the UN observers have been FAR MORE effective at
eliminating these weapons.  But the UN observers have to able to do their job.

Sam McClintock
mac@ensanity.com