The Japan Times Online

The Japan Times Online n fact, the U.S. is spending more in total on defense than the next 11 highest-spending nations put together, and will soon outspend all other countries combined, according to Newsweek (March 24).

Clearly, the U.S. budget is large enough to ensure military readiness and fully protect America's air, water and wildlife -- after all, who would lament the production of 100 fewer cruise missiles? Not to mention the hypocrisy of adorning warplanes with pictures of the hawks and eagles whose natural habitat they're degrading.

But a closer look reveals a hypocrisy that runs much deeper. The controversy centers on the "Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative" -- Section 316 of the proposed act, which would apply to lands managed by the DoD, as well as surrounding ambient air and open-water marine ecosystems.

Here's a taste of the bill's Orwellian double-speak (italics added): "The purpose of this chapter is to: "(1) protect the lives and well-being of citizens of the United States and preserve their freedoms, economic prosperity, and environmental heritage by ensuring military readiness; . . . "(6) to re-establish the appropriate balance between military readiness and environmental stewardship; . . .

Apparently, despite its massive budget, the Pentagon fears "environmental stewardship" is getting the upper hand on "military readiness." More incredibly, the Bush administration believes that to protect the lives and well-being of American citizens and to preserve their freedoms, economic prosperity and environmental heritage, the military must have the freedom to degrade the environment.

Confusing, yes, but don't start asking questions. War is a time for patriotism, and today's brand of patriotism in the U.S. means placing blind trust in the country's leaders.