« Previous · Home · Next »
No Sonar in the SOCALs
By Bull Nav
Well, once again, a court has decided that it knows what is best for the country:
LOS ANGELES (AP) ― A federal judge says the Navy must follow environmental laws placing strict limits on sonar training.
So the ball is now back into the President's court, while our ASW readiness continues to be affected because some people would attempt to protect the environment based on faulty (or no) data (and where have we heard that before?).
ASW - Anti-submarine Warfare - is not an easy game. The primary tool surface ships have is active sonar, which is when you put sound energy into the water and look for a "return" similar to a radar return. In the undersea environment, there can be lots of things that cause false returns: schools of fish, whales, ships, and undersea mountains, just to name a few. When the operators get little to no practice, they will not be ready when a real situation comes along.
Therefore, as I see it, these judges are affecting readiness and the ability of the Navy to do its part, as chartered by Congress, to defend the country. Making decisions based on feelings and a serious lack of data are going to cost us one day in a big way.
These guys need to back off, and let the Navy train the way it needs to train.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1565
Comments
why can't there be a compromise? I like whales and security.
wait a minute, did not the President sign the Executive Order providing for unlimited use of the sonars just last month?? Or is this in response to the tree-huggers' court challenge to that Order??
Duh... should have read the link...
Since it was a waiver not an Executive Order, may be now it got to be the Order...
Wonder if President Obama will like whales more than the Navy?
I was a Navy submariner / submarine officer for 11 years and I have to say you are wrong when you say that a court shouldn't have a say in what is best for the country. The rule of law is the issue here and it is something we should hold sacred. In a democratic republic the military is subordinate to the wishes of the people. If the people are making the wrong choices based on an imperfect understanding of what is at stake, then it is incumbent on the Navy to do a better job of conveying the issue and making their case. This us/them mindset is the opposite of "government by the people / for the people" and perpetuates more of this kind of impasse.
If you believe that the military should make these kinds of decisions without interference by civilian courts or law makers, China comes to mind as a shining example to follow.
Jim - thanks for the comments.
I do not believe it is the place of the courts to interfere with military preparation but I do think lawmakers should. I believe that if people think that there is an issue, they should take it up with their Congressman/Senator. Congress has been charged with "providing for the common defense" and as such, should address this issue, not the courts. Again, this is a question of readiness, but I also do believe in what my oath of office says, and that it must remain so.
To your point of the Navy educating folks on Sonar, the Ocean Stewardship website ostensibly to discuss issues such as this. I have not yet taken a good look at the website, but please go and see what the Navy has to say on the issue.
Bullnav - maybe I need to go back and re-read what is happening here, but my understanding is that lawmakers did establish the rules that are interfering with the Navy's wish to use sonar in that location. Rather than attempt to get the law changed, President Bush over-rode the law based on an assertion that the impact on national security was dire and immediate. The courts, as part of their role as an independent judiciary, interpreted the current situation as not meeting the test for dire and immediate (not the exact correct words).
Again, this isn't about "courts interfering with the military", but about the courts enforcing the rule of law that was put in place by the representative legislature.
My point of view on this is that it will be difficult for the Navy to train under these circumstances; but as members of the service (or previous members) we need to remember the context in which we serve. These kinds of tensions will always be present.
I took a look at the web site you sent and it is a good site. Good information. However, I'd like to see the Navy's PR arm do more aggressive outreach in the "Tylenol scare" fashion and not treat the media as an enemy to be contained, but as a partner to nurture. Just my $.02. Thanks.
Jim - the Navy was barred from using active sonar off the coast of California through judicial action alone, and not legislative action. An injunction was issued in response to a NRDC lawsuit which requested the ban on active sonar operations. In my mind, issues such as this should be taken up by Congress on behalf of their constituents, should the constituents have an issue with military operations. I always thought the courts were there to interpret the law and not make it.
I agree completely that the Navy PR machine is woefully lacking, and not just in what they are trying to do with the Ocean Stewardship website. There is data and there has been research that needs to be on the website in an open, objective manner. Additionally, they could create an open forum....etc., etc., etc. The Navy's lack of marketing expertise and likewise PR goes much further than just this issue.
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
With that Chinese submarine surfacing alongside the Kitty Hawk a while back, one would hope a judge would see ASW training as a higher priority than protecting the dolphins.