Intelligent response to the Post Editorial

There are some really good reader's comments on Coffman's Denver Post editorial.(http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12513192.) They are gratifying as a guage of our statewide support and the depth of understanding that people are gaining on the issue. This one is the best of the lot:

Congressman Coffman's commentary seeks to paint a very distorted picture of the Pinon Canyon issue. After having watched his political and military career since the pre-Desert Storm era I am deeply disappointed that he published this commentary.

Beyond the misleading title it is nearly preposterous to contend that the Army would abandon Fort Carson and Pinon Canyon for lack of expansion. Certainly that is the factual blurring attempted in this commentary. It is a false threat to believe that what currently exists as the real estate assets of Fort Carson is insufficient to ensure its survival throughout the future of the US Army.

Someone should provide the good Congressman with a background packet on the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The final reports of the last two rounds of BRAC provide enough glowing evaluations of the value of the existing Pinon Canyon to effectively refute almost all of the concocted deficiencies being parroted by Congressman Coffman.

The complaint that is coming from Congressman Coffman and his El Paso County colleague, Congressman Lamborn, is that Fort Carson will not realize the exponential growth that is so vital to the Colorado Springs area.

This is little more than a fool-hardy pursuit of building an even bigger Army basket for that community to trust with an even greater share of its economic "eggs." Colorado Springs has been in desperate need of strength through economic diversity. The priorities and philosophy presented by Congressman Coffman are effectively counter-productive to the economic health of the region and the State.

During my 26-years of military service I never experienced perfect field training. It just isn’t possible and I spent a considerable amount at time at the Army training centers that are larger than Fort Carson and Pinon Canyon combined. The contention that Pinon Canyon is not big enough is a political argument easily overcome by the ingenuity and imagination of Army unit commanders and their Operations (training) Officers. Following that doctrine has been successful for decades.

Where the land that is available is less that doctrinally perfect you use simulations and minimize the number of maneuver units. That the recent Fort Carson leadership chose to further restrict the available maneuver land at Pinon Canyon by reversing decades of policy and allowing live munitions is their own folly, and not a penalty to borne by the neighboring private property owners.

Ralph Trenary