There are certainly lots of similarities between the first efforts to expand Fort Carson (that became the effort to acquire PCMS) in 1974 and the Army's current effort at Pinon Canyon.
(see the headlines of the 1974 'lead up' to the taking the first PCMS here: http://csaction.org/TPs/paper.html and don't forget to look up other articles at our website's documents page - just scroll down to 'Sound Familiar' heading)
There are certainly lots of similarities between the attempted expansion in 1974 and the Army's current effort at Pinon Canyon.
It is obvious that there is no end point to the ever-increasing "need" for more training land as longer-range weapon-systems and improved communication-systems are developed by the defense contractors. The Army's "need" for training lands has grown ten-fold just since Desert Storm.
Earlier on most of the Pinon Canyon discussion/debate focused upon this question of military necessity; does the Army really need to take 7 million acres of private and state land in order to adequately train troops? The rhetoric about "military necessity" and "patriotic sacrifice" has subsided and given way to concerns about the economic interests of military-dependent Colorado Springs and the economic interests of agriculture-dependent Southeastern Colorado. Conservative cheerleaders of expansion like Lamborn, Coffman and McInnis have gotten down to the bottom line. Gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis recently boiled it all down at a fund-raiser hosted by State Representative Larry Liston, to this terse statement; "Hell, this is about jobs."
But we are in danger of allowing the more important aspects of the Pinon Canyon issue to become obscured by current concerns about the urban economy of Colorado Springs and the rural economy of Southeastern Colorado.
There is an age-old theme at play here that we must not lose sight of; the "need" to use military and political power to take land, resources and life away from the poor and powerless in order to enrich an elite class. In the 18th Century it was Native Americans whose lands and culture stood in the way of the "need" for commerce with Mexico on the Santa Fe Trail and the "need" to exploit the gold fields of Colorado Springs and Denver. Military force was used to clear away that obstruction at places like Sand Creek. In the 20th Century is was poor immigrants trying to organize for safer working conditions in the coal mines of Southern Colorado who stood in the way of corporate "needs." Military force was again used to inflict a blow upon their fledgling union movement at the Ludlow tent colony. And now, in the 21st Century it is ranchers who are living on land that their ancestors settled a hundred years ago, who stand in the way of the needs of military contractors headquartered in places like Colorado Springs and Aurora. Once again, relatively poor, powerless people are being told they have to get out of the way of the rich and powerful.
It comes down to basic questions of whose needs will prevail; basic human needs or the "necessities" of military expansionism; the right of citizens to be secure in their homes or the perceived need to "Grow the Army." It comes down to the queston of whether we will stand by as American citizens are forced to defend their lands and livelihoods from being seized by their own military in order to satisfy the never-satisfied need for a bigger and bigger military.
(see the headlines of the 1974 'lead up' to the taking the first PCMS here: http://csaction.org/TPs/paper.html and don't forget to look up other articles at our website's documents page - just scroll down to 'Sound Familiar' heading)
There are certainly lots of similarities between the attempted expansion in 1974 and the Army's current effort at Pinon Canyon.
It is obvious that there is no end point to the ever-increasing "need" for more training land as longer-range weapon-systems and improved communication-systems are developed by the defense contractors. The Army's "need" for training lands has grown ten-fold just since Desert Storm.
Earlier on most of the Pinon Canyon discussion/debate focused upon this question of military necessity; does the Army really need to take 7 million acres of private and state land in order to adequately train troops? The rhetoric about "military necessity" and "patriotic sacrifice" has subsided and given way to concerns about the economic interests of military-dependent Colorado Springs and the economic interests of agriculture-dependent Southeastern Colorado. Conservative cheerleaders of expansion like Lamborn, Coffman and McInnis have gotten down to the bottom line. Gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis recently boiled it all down at a fund-raiser hosted by State Representative Larry Liston, to this terse statement; "Hell, this is about jobs."
But we are in danger of allowing the more important aspects of the Pinon Canyon issue to become obscured by current concerns about the urban economy of Colorado Springs and the rural economy of Southeastern Colorado.
There is an age-old theme at play here that we must not lose sight of; the "need" to use military and political power to take land, resources and life away from the poor and powerless in order to enrich an elite class. In the 18th Century it was Native Americans whose lands and culture stood in the way of the "need" for commerce with Mexico on the Santa Fe Trail and the "need" to exploit the gold fields of Colorado Springs and Denver. Military force was used to clear away that obstruction at places like Sand Creek. In the 20th Century is was poor immigrants trying to organize for safer working conditions in the coal mines of Southern Colorado who stood in the way of corporate "needs." Military force was again used to inflict a blow upon their fledgling union movement at the Ludlow tent colony. And now, in the 21st Century it is ranchers who are living on land that their ancestors settled a hundred years ago, who stand in the way of the needs of military contractors headquartered in places like Colorado Springs and Aurora. Once again, relatively poor, powerless people are being told they have to get out of the way of the rich and powerful.
It comes down to basic questions of whose needs will prevail; basic human needs or the "necessities" of military expansionism; the right of citizens to be secure in their homes or the perceived need to "Grow the Army." It comes down to the queston of whether we will stand by as American citizens are forced to defend their lands and livelihoods from being seized by their own military in order to satisfy the never-satisfied need for a bigger and bigger military.
Ultimately we have to come back around to the question of "military necessity;" and the question of "patriotic sacrifice." The military and the weapons manufacturers say that it is necessary to transform millions of acres of private and state land into a huge live-fire range because of the increased range of their weapons and because of increased dimensions of battlefields as satellite communications make it possible to remotely "pilot" unmanned Predators and Reapers.
The land is necessary they say, in order to learn how to use new robotic weapons, lethal new technologies mounted on unmanned air and ground vehicles. The century-old homes of ranchers are "necessary" so that they can become mock Pinon Canyon villages, fired upon from air conditioned control rooms in Colorado Springs.
.
The land is necessary they say, in order to learn how to use new robotic weapons, lethal new technologies mounted on unmanned air and ground vehicles. The century-old homes of ranchers are "necessary" so that they can become mock Pinon Canyon villages, fired upon from air conditioned control rooms in Colorado Springs.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment