NDAA

National Defense Authorization Act, Section 2827: Report on Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site

These are selected scans from the PDF document and comments about each Complete PDF availible by writing contact(at)CSaction.org


This section says the Army wants 18 times as much land as they have now. This land increase is for Rummy's transformational approach to a fast, small, mobile Army, which has been hated by the brass all along, and Rummy's is no longer Secretary of Defense. The Marine Corps also does not agree with this model for land warfare training, and neither does the Rand Corporation's study nor the Army War College. 

In this section the Army talks about taking BLM and Forest Service land out of public use and using it for training, for example at Fort Polk, where the public is banned from 98,000 acres of public land, the Army didn't pay for. Note how small these other land increases are compared to what is proposed at PCMS.  This also highlights how little respect the Army has for OUR public lands. 

Here, the Army is talking about the net increase in soldiers at Fort Carson being 23,000. The 3rd ACR is moving to Fort Hood, so the net increase reflects that. Note that the Army says that Fort Carson (not PCMS) is "one of the Army's premier training sites".  The BRAC document makes this very clear and we have sited it in the comment letter sent concerning the EIS.

Here, the Army admits the NTC at Fort Irwin is the brigade sized training needed for operations the size of the Iraq invasion. It should be noted that no training of this sort has gone on since 2001 at PCMS. Tom Warren said "We haven't had a  tank on the ground down there in years."  Robin Renn said that the reason is that all the equipment is in Iraq and not available for training purposes. Tom Warren said that too.

This is the acreage "needed" for each unit. Notice the 3rd ACR, which will be moving to Fort Hood, is listed as needing 108,724 acres. The estimates of land needed for the post CRAB Fort Carson do NOT reflect that loss of need, when the 3rd ACR moves. Strange the way they pick and choose different models.  This 276,606 number doesn't fit with anything else they say.  Up above they say a BCT such as the 3rd BCT, 4th ID needs a manuever box 75K by 75K.  It is complete jabberwocky. And as you see below, it is mumbo jumbo all the way through.  It should be pointed out that there are at least a dozen other bases that are training multiple brigades and none of them are going though all this gymnastics with boxes and charts and confusing number analysis.  It is just bull shit on top of bull shit

This lists the restricted area at the PCMS as 10,458, but after the Army has surveyed only 31% of the land for archeological, anthropological, and flora and fauna endangerment.

Here the Army admits they had more land than they needed in 2005, but they were in the middle of expanding the PCMS!

Here, in direct contradiction of the above estimation of needing 18 times as much land, they say only a 143% increase is needed.

Here's where the math stops adding up. 305,617 total usable acres between Fort Carson and the PCMS. 724,124 acres needed after the BRAC realignments, which means 418,507 more acres needed, (phase 1 of the expansion) BUT the 3rd ACR is leaving, and it's "needed" training acres are listed above as 108,724, so that, subtracted from the 418,507 leaves only 309,783 acres.

By the Way, BRAC is means Realignment and Closure not Expansion.  There is no E in BRAC

Here, the figures show the net increase of soldiers after the 3rd ACR leaves, but the acreage above doesn't reflect that net increase, but a gross increase, as if the 3rd ACR were staying.

Here, they claimed that taking the same amount of soldiers and splitting them into smaller sub groups, requires 95,235 more acres to train!

Here they say they need to spread out more, but not the 155 miles from Fort Carson to the PCMS, which seems to satisfy the need for distant communications.

Notice in the maps below, that the boxes go outside the existing PCMS north of Las Animas County, into Otero County, and south into the agricultural region near Hoehne.

 

 

Analysis by Mark Lewis and Bill Sulzman