******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/ Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: July 2, 2020 at 2:31:25 PM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Environment]: Nuspl on Martini, 'Proving Grounds: > Militarized Landscapes, Weapons Testing, and the Environmental Impact of U.S. > Bases' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Edwin A. Martini, ed. Proving Grounds: Militarized Landscapes, > Weapons Testing, and the Environmental Impact of U.S. Bases. Donald > R. Ellegood International Publications Series. Seattle University of > Washington Press, 2015. 320 pp. $60.00 (cloth), ISBN > 978-0-295-99465-9. > > Reviewed by Tony Nuspl (Rogers State University, Tulsa Peace > Fellowship) > Published on H-Environment (July, 2020) > Commissioned by Daniella McCahey > > "The Mess That War Left Behind" > > To be fair, "the demilitarization of landscapes" is a large topic, > and the nine essays within Edwin A. Martini's edited collection > Proving Grounds: Militarized Landscapes, Weapons Testing, and the > Environmental Impact of U.S. Bases provide a slice (introduction, by > Martini, p. 13). But the book is not a compelling read. Part of the > problem is the editor's preference for what he calls "the detached > perspective," which makes for some bloodless writing, in the policy > vein, as opposed to the "resistance school," writings that do not shy > away from value judgments about US militarism and imperialism (pp. 5, > 4-6). As a result, the latter is sorely underrepresented and instead, > overall, this collection seems to strive for what might be called a > veneer of objectivity, an academic tone of detachment that tends to > reinforce the status quo. Perhaps this even bleeds into providing > apologia for past US military mistakes, or the current refusal to own > up to environmental disasters caused, both at home and abroad, by US > military forces and/or "militarized landscapes" incidental to US > bases. Yet the introduction promises discussion of "charges of > ecocide" made against the US military (p. 14). Instead we get a > tendentious argument that the US military is capable of acknowledging > "nature's integral role" (p. 8). > > Aren't we better off just sticking to the term "landscapes of > contamination" rather than debating "the refuge effect" for the fauna > that happen to be guests of military-controlled lands (pp. 9, 249)? > Chapter 2, by Neil Oatsvall, opines that the military is capable of a > "deep sensitivity to the natural world" because of a nod in the > direction of protecting charismatic species --in this case, the sea > otter; also see chapter 8 on the red-cockaded woodpecker, the brown > pelican, the Hawaiian stilt, the manatee, the leatherback turtle, > etc. (introduction, p. 8). Chapter 3, by Leisl Carr Childers, > attempts to reconstruct people's reactions to nuclear testing and > their consciousness (or lack thereof) that bombs going off upwind > means that they--and their livestock--are in turn downwinders "under > the shadow of the fallout cloud" (p. 84; "downwind" pp. 81, 90). The > essay discusses the popular epidemiology used by non-experts outside > the military proper to understand the degree of risk from nuclear > bomb tests to which they or their livestock might be exposed. Using > inductive reasoning, the average citizen was capable of concluding > that "contact with radioactive fallout seemed the most likely > explanation" for some of the health problems being experienced (p. > 103). But in keeping with the detached perspective, it is impossible > to say what the author's views are about low-level radiation (LLR) > exposure from the testing regime that occurred in the continental US. > > Meanwhile, chapters 4 and 5 are concerned with how the biological and > chemical weapons used by the US military for aerial defoliation can > be the subject of "spin." Chapter 4, by Martini, argues that the > more-or-less responsible destruction of Agent Orange stocks in the > 1970s constitutes sufficient evidence for a wonted "military > environmentalism"--even if this involved using the Johnston Atoll in > the Pacific as a dumping ground (p. 113). But as the author explains, > if it was a responsible way to destroy the environmental hazard, also > known as "the mess that war left behind," the US military only did so > because it "was compelled to deal" with an increasingly complex set > of environmental laws and regulations (pp. 121, 113). The academic > approach dominates chapter 5, by Daniel Weimer, with its discussion > of "post-environmental movement discourse" in the "defoliation > programs" of US foreign policy (p. 148). The institutional bias in > the discussion is clear, with the emphasis on "how U.S. officials in > the mid-1970s negotiated a seemingly inhospitable atmosphere" > regarding herbicide programs, with their desire to continue using > Vietnam-style defoliants, based on Monsanto corporation's product > glyphosate (p. 144). In sum, Weimer argues that American officials > aimed "to thwart critics who argued that drug crop defoliation posed > a danger to the environment and public health" for the sake of > pursuing the drug war (p. 147). Again, this chapter undermines the > idea that there is such a thing as "military environmentalism." > > Chapters 6, 7, and 8 address the role of civil society in opposing > militarized landscapes. Chapter 6, by Jennifer Liss Ohayon, involves > a promising discussion of "citizen advisory boards" as part of the > civilian oversight of US military Superfund sites, in other words, > the hundreds of environmental disaster zones designated as priorities > by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This touches on issues > of environmental injustice done to minority communities forced to > bear the brunt of the pollution and contamination in their > communities due to US military operations, US bases, or US munitions > production. It should come as no surprise that "military-related > activities are responsible for the majority of the contaminated > federal lands in the United States" (p. 177). Given that the > Superfund Act was "passed in part as a response to public advocacy," > public participation is still needed to ensure Department of Defense > (DOD) accountability in the requisite environmental cleanup or > remediation efforts (p. 172). Unfortunately, the citizen advisory > boards--up until they were disbanded--did not really afford the > public a chance to shape decisions or influence priorities for > specific sites, according to the case studies addressed here. Chapter > 7, by Heejin Han and Yooil Bae, discusses civil society as the source > of pressure to change the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in South > Korea. Essentially, the problem is that the SOFA is a paper tiger > when it comes to environmental protection, providing cover for the > negligence of US Forces in Korea (USFK). All the costs to mitigate > the damage caused at Camp Kim have been borne by the Koreans, because > the USFK has externalized the cost of its operations, foisting the > cost of cleanup on the Koreans so as not to be borne by the USFK. The > intransigence of the USFK on this point, and the reluctance of the > South Korean government to rock the boat, as host nation, means that > it remains largely in the hands of investigative journalists to raise > public awareness about "the environmental externalities produced by > U.S. military bases" (p. 230). > > Chapter 8, by Katherine M. Keirns, addresses the use of landmark > legislation by the citizenry as a kind of domestic "insurgency" > against at least three types of militarized landscapes: DOD land > grabs, Cold War nuclear standoff weapons in farm fields, and > biological weapons labs in the Midwest. The experience at Fort Bragg, > North Carolina, where the civilian US Fish and Wildlife Service, a > relatively underfunded agency went up against the US Army, and won > its case for species conservation under the Endangered Species Act > (ESA), is retold here. There are today still complaints from the > armed services about the power of the ESA; but the DOD has secured > itself buffer zones around its bases under the auspices of the ESA, > having learned from these legal suits against it to situate itself as > defender of the land rather than as a threat to it. There are good > reasons to remain dubious about the sincerity of such > environmentalism, given the instrumental goals that could be hiding > behind it (more land grabs, down the line) and the ingrained > grumbling about the ESA within the military. > > What kind of "wilderness" is it, when, due to human hazards left > behind, you have to sign a waiver before entering? The last chapter > in this volume, chapter 9, by David G. Havlick, recommends a visit to > the refuge in southern Indiana, carved out of the Jefferson Proving > Ground (JPG), even though there is a radiological hazard lurking from > so-called depleted uranium rounds, not to mention the > non-radiological hazard from another three to five million unexploded > conventional shells. As a "militarized landscape," the nature of the > site as "severely degraded" is readily admitted (p. 266). But we get > more of the detached perspective, with this "hybrid landscape" > described as an "integrated cultural and ecological production" (pp. > 268, 266.). Rather than admit that certain things useful to the > military have no utility in the state of nature--such as genotoxic > radioactive fragments and unexploded ordnance (UXO)--the argument > turns the concept of ecological restoration on its head, in order to > "interpret the relationship between militarism and the environment > more broadly" (p. 267). This is the thin edge of the wedge, leading > to the argument that man (to wit, militarized man) is the measure of > all things. The cynic might sniff at the greenwashing involved in > relabeling major military installations as "national wildlife > refuges"--nearly two dozen of them now created in the US in this > fashion, by repurposing military lands. (The prospect that this is > mere rhetorical cover is explicitly mentioned in this volume as a > possibility, in chapters 8 and 9). Yes, the DOD would like you to > believe in the "military's environmental stewardship" (p. 270, citing > an official publication), and have you sign the hold-harmless > agreement as you enter their sites, but what we are really looking at > are "mutant ecologies" (Joseph Masco's term, from a paper cited in > chapter 9, p. 285n18), a term of art that is particularly apt where > radiological contamination is involved, such as from depleted uranium > (DU) ordnance tests, or plutonium contamination. It is also hard to > see how uncleared minefields (such as the DMZ in Korea, or the "death > strip" of the Iron Curtain Trail) can be called "de facto wildlife > refuges" (p. 271): that certainly is not what the layman means by > "wilderness." In sum, the discussion of nature gets unmoored, > increasingly subject to poststructuralist or postmodern academic > speculation, in the "discourse of ecological militarization" with its > disjunctures and simulacra; _an ersatz nature of brownfields_ seems > to be all that the DOD lands can provide as de facto protected areas, > the military's land base often being "in dire need of cleanup and > remediation" before it can be given back in some shape or form to the > civilian world (pp. 283, 276). > > In defense of US military practices, there is mention of what might > be called environmental recovery occurring at (some) militarized > landscapes, by means undertaken intentionally to reverse the demise > of nature where possible, by providing "ecological restoration" to > damaged lands or contaminated waters. The idea behind the recovery of > an ecosystem is usually that nature can only recuperate when humanity > retreats, or somehow gives the ecology a break from the stresses > imposed by human civility--or incivility, as the case may be. The > instituting of dozens of transitional military-to-wildlife refuges > ("M2W") is not necessarily progress; it might just be _false_ > progress, resulting in merely managed landscapes. This collection > seems to want to blur the distinction between "militarized > landscapes" (in the title of the book) and land recuperating from > previous military uses (the bomb crater as habitat). The essays are > at cross-purposes in this regard: whereas chapter 1, by Brandon C. > Davis, argues that wilderness conservation on military-claimed lands > was largely "an unintended or ironic consequence of locking up land," > essentially accidental and incidental, chapter 8, by Katherine M. > Keirns, argues that this kind of benefit to nature is now wired into > the military's land management policies, because of lessons learned > (p. 35). With this category of "military-into-wildlife refuge" (and > attendant "buffer zones"), there is a tendency to anthropomorphize > nature, resorting to cultural excuses for incompletely restored land, > unintentional "gardens." The overall claim seems to be that this kind > of hybrid landscape is the new reality we have to accept, or the best > of a possible future. And yet, if there is a unifying theme for this > volume, it is that the US military and its "empire of bases that > continue to litter the planet" should not be permitted to treat any > part of the land or sea as a Permanent Sacrifice Zone (PSZ), whether > at home or abroad, whether in the plains or in the forests, whether > along the coast or in a deep sea trench (p. 15). > > Citation: Tony Nuspl. Review of Martini, Edwin A., ed., _Proving > Grounds: Militarized Landscapes, Weapons Testing, and the > Environmental Impact of U.S. Bases_. H-Environment, H-Net Reviews. > July, 2020. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54815 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
