Do I have that one right?
I wonder how the civilians on post who are furloughed one day a week feel about his pet project?
It likely has never occurred to General Pittardo that allowing off shore and in-continent drilling here would solve that pesky little platitude, from a political General's standpoint, of course.
A lot of “green” projects are humbug, but cutting energy usage, using non-potable water for watering lawns and gardens, and recycling things for which a reasonable price is paid for used/scrap (of which brass, esp. in the form of reloadable shell casings, and aluminum are certainly examples) or when recycling provides disposal at lower cost than land-fill usage, are all things every large organization should do to cut costs without sacrificing mission.
(I’m all for “green” when it coincides with cutting-costs or provides documentable human health benefits commensurate with the costs, but otherwise regard “green” projects as at best romantic humbug, and at worst statist plots.)
I wonder if the General understands that the "Green Party" despises the United States Armed Forces and everything they stand for.
Speechless...
“Thousands of brass casings were left on firing ranges.”
Didn’t take long for pure bullshit to rise to the top of this article.
This assclown is a military commander?
Pray for America.
I’m of two minds here: using less water and power is good practice for deploying: the less you use, the less you NEED, and thus logistics is easier. And it IS logistics that wins wars . . .
On the other hand, there all the “green” mealymouthing.
But I wonder. . . is it POSSIBLE this guy is being sly like a fox: MOUTHING the Green policies to better prepare his command to deploy into austere areas ????
As I recall we had to police up our brass at the firing range. I didn't even know they had a golf course. The only grass I saw was at the parade grounds and the only places with air conditioning? I don't remember any and I was there in Aug.
Thousands of brass casings were left on firing ranges.
Every range I’ve ever gone to, we were not allowed to leave until the brass was policed up. And when we turned it in they weighed it and we were only allowed a small percentage of loss. If we were over that we had to go back to the range and find more.
So, at first blush, this guy really doesn't endear himself to any thoughtful people with this sort of hyperbole. Criminality simply CANNOT be ascribed to the years-ago connection of landscape watering systems to the potable water supply. MOST places -- to this very day -- DO NOT HAVE ANY non-potable water supply to tap into for landscape water. Yet, this guy is tossing "criminal" about like a beach ball in application to decisions that were made before he was even a twinkle in his Daddy's eye; decisions made with then-current technology and resources in mind.
One cannot go back and criminalize past decisions using present-day metrics, or perhaps the Major General has no grasp of the meaning of "ex post facto"? His language is akin to suggesting that George Washington was incompetent in his military leadership because he failed to take advantage of fully automatic weapons. There's a mental gap, here, and it's large enough to fly Air Force One through it.
NOW...
...RECOGNIZING that bit of insanity as such, there IS something worthwhile being promoted, here: the concept of upgrading existing systems with present-day technology so as to cut waste, and enable better stewardship of available resources is of solid value. It should be obvious that doing so in the context of military base operations MUST NOT have ANY negative impact upon our fighting capabilities, upon force readiness, upon morale, nor any other aspect affecting battlefield performance, but that doesn't mean that there are no resource conservation measures that can be implemented; it only means that there are elevated considerations necessary to doing so in that particular context.
At about $300 a gallon, right? Sure, less fossil fuel is used but at what cost?