Politics ‘U.S. Pacom-style’

The July 2, 2015, article “Military to NMI consultants: ‘Tell us exactly where we are not in compliance’” is illustrative of how military officialdom plays politics with islanders. 

Craig Whelden claims in the article that Dentons US LLC and Environmental Science Associates make statements that are too broad and unclear. Whelden says that “The statement is a little broad, and I don’t know exactly what they meant when they said the evidence was inadequate or alternatives had not been considered that we did not engage in soliciting public input. Those are the things I asked them to be more specific about.”

Whelden is demonstrating how to play politics with islanders in this example for many reasons. First, Whelden is not the client of Dentons US LLC or ESA—the government of the CNMI is the client. Second, while Whelden says that comments made are too broad, he simultaneously omits to make specific reference to a specific provision or set of provisions contained within NEPA to effectively counter any claim made by Dentons and ESA. Third, the burden of proof is on the military to defend the quality and full statutory compliance of its official outputs, not the other way around.

Another example of Whelden playing impression politics is his attempt to make U.S. Pacom look like the “good guy” in the DEIS process by stating that the general public has 180 days to make comments on the DEIS. This statement fails to acknowledge that Pacom had years to prepare the DEIS and to somehow think that 180 calendar days is enough time for islanders and the general public to carefully read, assess, ask questions, digest, formulate, and submit comments on a topic that will forever change the NMI environmentally and culturally is grossly misplaced. The fact that Whelden didn’t make comparative statements tying in the time the military had to prepare the DEIS with the substantially shorter range of time given to islanders and the general public to comment is impression politics, U.S. Pacom-style.

A second example of U.S. Pacom playing politics “island style” is found in the public statements made by the No. 2 guy at U.S. Pacific Command, Anthony Crutchfield. Joel D. Pinaroc’s July 3rd, 2015, Saipan Tribune article “Inos says talk on proposed military build up ‘work in progress'” demonstrates the political deftness of Anthony Crutchfield. Crutchfield affirms in the article that he will “interface” with leaders in Washington D.C., particularly top Pentagon officials.

The question, however, is what is Crutchfield’s definition of “interface” and why should we care? Does interface mean that Crutchfield will make 10-second references to the Mariana Islands next time he pays a visit to the Army Chief of Staff? Does interface mean that Crutchfield will share one or two concerns that islanders have with other senior general officers to convey that “progress” is somehow being made in the Marianas? Does interface mean that Crutchfield will meet with Robert Work or provide written testimony to Congress that islander concerns, such as environmental and Chamorro cultural damage, are going relatively unnoticed and should now be addressed with equal importance as military desires are viewed? Without a specific definition of what is meant by “interface,” Chamorros and Carolinians may be left with nothing but a bag full of hot air, U.S. Pacom-style. 

Mr. Pinaroc’s article continues by paraphrasing Crutchfield, when it is stated [referencing Crutchfildl] that “disagreements are to be expected but it is his hope that the disagreements should not be based on hearsay or brought about by emotions.” What is Crutchfield talking about? Warfare is inherently a political, emotional, irrational and ultimately a destructive endeavor. Planes, ships, missiles, bombs, amphibious training, active sonar, naval gunfire and spent ammo are used by military folks to carry out political ends by other than peaceful means. War is a human endeavor and to suggest that Chamorros and Carolinians should somehow not incorporate hearsay or emotion is one method to attempt to control or influence how the target population of islanders from the Marianas should think or feel. It is also a disrespectful comment targeted at islanders because it is based in part on the assumption that we somehow cannot think for ourselves and by extension, must instead listen to government employees wearing fancy uniforms. 

Crutchfield also stated in Mr. Pinaroc’s article, “We want to be good partners.” What does this mean? If islanders continue to not give consent and approval to the DEIS and the idea of increased militarization in the Marianas, will we still be considered good partners or will it be changed to “bad partners” or something else?

There are many unstated assumptions in the language used by both Whelden and Crutchfield that need further examination and clarification because without these folks being more explicit and specific in language used, what we are seeing is politics, U.S. Pacom-style.

If senior military and politically appointed leaders from U.S. Pacom or from the Pentagon want to build trust, the ugly truth about how potentially destructive this military endeavor is going to be in all domains must be the first order of business. U.S. Pacom should also redirect its impression management machine and start explaining just how the Covenant fits into military desires for the NMI and explain what is a military “requirement” and who determines what is or is not a “requirement.” It would also help if U.S. Pacom explains why target practice options did not include areas outside of the Marianas Islands because, according to Pacom’s official website, this military organization’s area of responsibility covers half of the entire planet. Since when are Pagan and Tinian islands the only islands that provide the only real options to simulate tactical warfare in the Pacific?

If Pacom doesn’t start speaking plainly to address the short- and long-term damage and destruction that will occur on both Tinian and Pagan undersea, on and below the land and in the air, it will continue to lose credibility because of U.S. Pacom’s lack of courage to speak the truth plainly and simply.

The first step toward achieving trust in any civilian-military relationship is being able to say unpleasant things in simply understood language, not government-centric military jargon butchered English. U.S. Pacom is playing both word games and “politricks” with islanders based in part on false hopes that select military officials will somehow give voice, establish, and sustain political traction and deliver the needed influence in Washington, D.C. to change the desired outcome that the military wants and desires in the first place. Perhaps U.S. Pacom and Pentagon bureaucrats who are overpaid to begin with can first explain how the Covenant between the U.S. and the NMI applies to the DEIS process and why Pagan and Tinian, comparatively speaking, are so heavily desired by the military when the area of responsibility covered by the U.S. Pacific Command is half the planet.

Rick Perez
Hanover, NH