Geren admits training available now (outside of PCMS)

Today, on the Army's Front Page section of their homepage an article quotes Mr. Geren as saying "when you look at the training range available to it (Ft Carson), it doesn't meet doctrinal requirements. That means that the brigades at Fort Carson often have to travel elsewhere and that's expensive in order to accomplish that training."

That statement validates what we have said all along - they ARE getting the training now without expanding PCMS. They HAVE been getting the training without expanding PCMS. It also obviously says to us that they can continue to get that training without PCMS expansion.

Mr. Geren says it is too expensive to transport troops to continue to get the training they are getting now however there are significant issues with such a statement.......

1. Transporting troops IS part of the 'train as we fight' doctrine - right? So they want more land to 'train as we fight' but not travel as part of the train as we fight scenario?

2. He only speaks of the Army perception. They are only looking at it from THEIR perspective - 'it will save us [the Army] money' DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OTHER ASPECTS of the issue. It will COST more than money and our livelihoods and our communities deserve more consideration than that.

3. He also doesn't mention the TRUE COST of taking the base economy for an entire region, along with the land purchase costs, etc.. There is NO PAYBACK - it will never pay for itself so in the long run it makes more sense budgetarily to travel to and from training locations.

4. There is a given cost associated with every transport no matter how far they are taken. So to say they will save a lot of money because they aren't going as far is misleading.

The expansion is being pushed merely for convenience, not necessity. So there is continuing pressure to expand a little used maneuver site, destroying regional economies and lives in the process just for the sake of convenience.

Our position? Steadfastly remains no expansion - isn't it far better to continue to provide training for our troops AND leave private businesses, agricultural production, and cities and communities intact?

There shouldn't be any question