Craig Whelden, the top civilian at Marine Forces Pacific makes misstated claims, false presuppositions, and continually invites himself into islander affairs with his public remarks regarding the Marianas as evidenced in the June 24, 2015 Saipan Tribune article by Jayson Camacho \u201cMilitary: Pagan would be a training area, not a bombing range.\u201d U.S. PACOM wants to assert American military influence through the DEIS process and through continual visits to persuade islanders that it is acceptable and OK to produce environmental and cultural damage onto Pagan and to further compromise Tinian for military training and bombing purposes. I disagree with what the military wants to do in Pagan and in Tinian.<\/p>\n
Whelden states that, \u201cit is a false characterization to liken the military\u2019s use of Pagan to Farallon de Medenilla, Vieques or Ko\u2019olawe.\u201d Whelden fails to state what he means by \u201ctraining area\u201d and \u201cbombing range\u201d and he fails to demonstrate how and why FDM, Vieques and Ko\u2019olawe are different from proposals to \u201cbomb\u201d and \u201ctrain\u201d on Pagan. Whelden and the U.S. Pacific Command also fail to convey that previous environmental damage caused by the military on Tinian and on Guam has been fully remediated and restored. If the military wants to grow its credibility with islanders, start showing us what was done to fully remediate all environmental damage in Guam as one starting point.<\/p>\n
The second example of how Craig Whelden makes misstated public claims is when he makes statements like \u201cWe have demonstrated in many locations around the world how the Department of Defense is a good steward of the environment. We would be so at Pagan as well.\u201d What comparative locations is Whelden referencing and how are his analogies important and useful to Chamorros and Carolinians? Are his references contained in the draft EIS? What does Whelden mean by saying that the DoD would be a good environmental steward? What information does Whelden have that somehow evidences that Pagan is up for negotiation and that islanders approve and consent to Pagan being damaged by military training and bombing? I believe Mr. Whleden makes poor references that are misstated because they are incomplete and not contextualized.<\/p>\n
Whelden also falsely presumes that Pagan\u2019s residents somehow want to \u201cco-exist\u201d with the American military. Whelden falsely presupposes that Pagan residents also want to co-exist with U.S. Special Operations personnel conducting training operations in the southern portion of Pagan and he falsely presupposes, by implication, that there will be a co-existence arrangement between islanders and the military on Pagan in the first place. Whelden also omits to discuss how the undersea coral beds and limestone will be damaged or destroyed for amphibious maneuvers and \u201ctraining\u201d on Pagan as well as on Tinian. Whelden omits to state how the destruction of topsoil, limestone, and coral beds will create the conditions that will cause erosion throughout the island when typhoons and storms come into the area.<\/p>\n
Whelden demonstrates self-inviting rudeness as demonstrated in Mr. Camacho\u2019s article when it is stated that \u201cWhelden thinks there would be some benefit for his team to accompany Tenorio to the island so they can better understand the CNMI\u2019s aspirations for Pagan as well as the CNMI understanding the limitations and care of the military\u2019s planned use of Pagan.\u201d This statement presupposes that CNMI officials want the military tagging along on CNMI governmental trips and it demonstrates just how badly the military wants Pagan. It reminds me of the phrase \u201cugly American\u201d because Whelden\u2019s aggressiveness is a sign of PACOM desperation founded on military desires and wants. It also demonstrates PACOM\u2019s refusal to take \u201cno\u201d as the answer to proposed military activities on Pagan.<\/p>\n
A second example of self-inviting rudeness is when Whelden wrongly claims that \u201cIt\u2019s time to take the next step, by opening the dialogue to find out how we can both benefit by the DoD\u2019s use (for training) of an island we recognize has special significance to the people of the CNMI. There is no commitment made by sitting down and talking. We may just learn that there are benefits to both sides.\u201d This kind of public statement demonstrates Whelden\u2019s lack of attentiveness to islander sentiments because the community has overwhelmingly stated that it does not approve or consent to the military taking of Pagan and to additional military activity taking place on Tinian. This statement also demonstrates PACOM\u2019s misread of just how important the Marianas Islands are to Chamorros and Carolinians alike because all islands of the Marianas are sacred and special, not just one island.<\/p>\n
If Whelden and the U.S. Pacific Command want to build lasting trust with islanders, all they need to do is say upfront what is the worst possible scenario and plainly state how the air, water, land, sub terrestrial, space and sea domains will be damaged and\/or destroyed and show us how it will be cleaned up. If Whelden wants to grow credibility with islanders, he needs to demonstrate how past congressional appropriations have been used to clean up Guam and Tinian. I distrust U.S. Pacific Command and the Pentagon because I think military officials such as Mr. Whelden lack the moral courage and the political will to be upfront and tell islanders just how damaging and destructive military activities will be on Pagan and on Tinian should the military get its way.<\/p>\n
Rick Perez<\/strong> Craig Whelden, the top civilian at Marine Forces Pacific makes misstated claims, false presuppositions, and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[26,51,2264,5785],"class_list":["post-205534","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-letters-to-the-editor","tag-cnmi","tag-guam","tag-pacific-command","tag-pacom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205534","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=205534"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205534\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nHanover, New Hampshire<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"