Posted on: Wednesday, May 16, 2001

Editorial
Makua resolution must include the community

There is little chance that the military will ever satisfy the critics of its plans, announced yesterday, to continue live-fire troop training at Makua Valley on the Leeward Coast.

But it must continue to try, in ways great and small.

On balance, the case for resuming live-fire training at Makua is convincing.

This leaves the dispute over whether the Army should complete an environmental impact statement on this training somewhat of a side issue.

The fundamental questions are, rather, whether such active training is critical to the Army mission and whether Makua is the only place to conduct that training.

Army's ultimate job

On the first question, the military makes a convincing case. The ultimate job of the armed forces is to fight an enemy in defense of the United States.

It would be irresponsible and callous to ask service men and women to go into such combat without adequate training. That training must include the real-time, company-level action in which infantry, artillery and air support are brought to bear on an objective.

This is precisely what goes on at Makua (or rather, did, before the Army temporarily halted all training in 1998).

Since that time, a lack of opportunity for such training has seriously degraded the readiness of troops, the Army says.

Other facilities

On the second question, the case has been less well-made. Even with Makua closed, the Army (along with the National Guard and the Marines) has been able to accomplish at least a limited amount of specific training that it says must occur at Makua.

There are some facilities for such training at Schofield Barracks and at Pohakuloa on the Big Island. Deployments to the Mainland and overseas also sometimes offer opportunities for this type of exercise, which involves combined forms of arms in a live-fire environment.

But these alternatives are expensive, difficult and time-consuming. Thus Makua may not be the only alternative, but from a budgetary, logistical and readiness standpoint, it appears to be the best.

What remains, then, is the question of whether the advantages to the military (and our military readiness) are worth the burdens they place on the archeological sites and the environment of Makua and on the residents of the Leeward Coast.

The serious soul-searching that has occurred while training was suspended resulted in some remarkable changes in the Army's approach at Makua. Live-fire ranges have been reduced; endangered species of plants and animals have been identified for protection; environmental studies have been launched; archeological sites have been identified and set aside; and state-of-the-art fire-control procedures have been put into place.

And slowly, a better dialogue between the military and the Leeward community has been established.

It is a good bet that much of this would not have happened (or at least would have happened much more slowly) if the military had not been under pressure from community opponents and from lawsuits.

So, is it enough? Is it time, as the Army argued yesterday, to get back to training?

Opponents say no, that at a minimum a full environmental impact statement is needed before going anywhere.

More argument

But that is unlikely to satisfy anything; it would simply pave the way for more argument and more legal maneuvering.

On a legal basis, the question of whether the military can resume training without an environmental impact statement will be resolved in federal court. There is little that military commanders can do about that other than trust their lawyers.

What they can do, and must do, is become as convincing about their sincere long-term interest in the health and welfare of the beleaguered Wai'anae community as they are about the welfare and readiness of their troops.

That important task has yet to be fully accomplished. What might help is stronger assurance that when the time comes that Makua is no longer needed, it will be returned to peaceful use and the promise of stewardship will be honored.

Burden on the Army

The Leeward Coast has suffered more than its share of unhappy burdens, from excessive poverty rates and social woes to unbearable traffic problems. This is no secret to military leaders who know the community has had it up to here and simply does not want this industrial enterprise to resume in its back yard.

What those residents must hear from the Army is a convincing, gut-level statement that it will resume training at Makua not because it can, but because it must.