Commentary: Politicos should stop playing politics with Pinon Canyon

Since it was first initiated, we have paid careful attention to the Army's proposal to increase the size of the Pinon Canyon maneuver site from 235,000 acres to more than 600,000 acres.

Those opposed to the expansion say that the Army is overreaching, that a quarter of a million acres is more than enough for training purposes. They also are dismayed, and rightfully so, by the prospect of forcing hundreds of ranching families off lands that, in many cases, have been passed down from generation to generation.

The Army, pointing to the changing nature of combat operations, contends that it needs the additional space to train the men and women who may, in years and decades to come, be charged with defending our country's vital interests in distant and hostile lands. Modern weapons systems greatly extend the reach and complexity of small-unit operations, necessitating the expansion.

Locally, advocates for the expansion warn that absent the expansion, Fort Carson might become less important to the Army, which would be obliged to seek a new maneuver site, and possibly even build a new base adjacent to it.

Far from welcoming thousands of additional troops, Carson might see force reductions and might even be threatened with closure.

Both arguments, for and against, are powerful and convincing.

In such a situation, pros and cons need to be explored carefully and dispassionately, without inflammatory posturing and needless scare tactics.

Unfortunately, some of our representatives in Washington have chosen to play politics, reducing the debate to a few simple-minded stereotypes.

Playing on the natural sympathy that Coloradoans have for the embattled ranchers of the proposed expansion area, both Sen. Ken Salazar and Rep. John Salazar, as well as Sen. Wayne Allard, have hastened to don white hats and portray themselves as champions of the underdog.

They propose to introduce legislation that would forbid the Army from using eminent domain to acquire any land for the expansion, essentially killing the project before it has even been fully debated.

And while they bask in the plaudits of ranchers, supporters of property rights and folks who are generally suspicious about anything the military does, permit us to cast a skeptical eye toward our peerless defenders of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Allard and the Salazars know perfectly well that their legislation has no chance of passing. No responsible legislator is going to cast a vote which would have the effect of giving individual states veto power over military needs.

But they're happy to make cheap political hay out of an agonizingly difficult dilemma, which seems to pit individual property rights against the needs of national security.

In such a circumstance, we applaud the efforts of Gov. Bill Ritter, who, in a recent interview with the Business Journal, expressed hope that a creative middle ground might be found between the ranchers and the military, which would allow ranchers to stay on their land.

Ritter suggested that land could be leased rather than sold and that maneuvers could be structured in such a way that their impact would be minimal.

The governor is doing what we hope any elected official, of either party, would do.

The Salazars and Allard are, by contrast, recalling the words of Mark Twain, who famously observed:

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

Copyright 2007 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.