Maine’s 133rd Engineer Battalion is important to the safety and security of our state, and any plans to move the unit to Pennsylvania raise a half dozen red flags.
The engineering unit would, under the proposed plan, be replaced by another unit, according to a Maine National Guard spokesman in Augusta.
Michel Steinbuchel told the Portland Press Herald that the move has been in a National Guard master plan since 2008.
Clearly, that portion of the plan was not well known, since the news seemed to take Gov. Paul LePage, considered the Guard’s “Commander in Chief,” by surprise.
There are 160 soldiers in the heavy equipment unit, which specializes in combat construction. Many of the unit’s training exercises have involved construction projects for public and charitable organizations in Maine.
The projects are a win-win: the Guard members receive training while carrying out important projects that otherwise may be too costly to complete.
What’s more, units with heavy equipment and skilled operators provide a critical backup in the event of a natural disaster.
While Maine is not prone to disasters, everyone is familiar with the relief efforts Guard units provide in such emergencies across the country.
The engineering unit also teaches skills that can be easily translated into jobs in the private economy.
A former commander of the Maine Army National Guard told the Press Herald Thursday that states fight to keep engineering units within their own borders.
“Carpenters, electricians, plumbers … there’s all kinds of equipment and all kinds of skills that we’ve used,” Adams told the paper.
Guard spokesman Steinbuchel said an infantry unit would be more flexible and agile than an engineering battalion, but the Guard should be required to explain how that could be.
A combat unit is primarily trained and equipped for combat, while a construction unit is prepared to carry out a range of practical tasks in Maine.
We all understand that the Pentagon must cut costs as it concludes two long wars overseas.
But Congress typically lards the Pentagon’s budget with extremely expensive high-tech projects. Many of these are pork-barrel contracts designed to subsidize military contractors and big campaign donors in members’ home districts.
Unless Guard officials can clearly prove how a combat unit would be more useful to the state, Mainers — from the governor on down — should mobilize to fight this decision.
While we are on military spending …
Since last year stories have regularly surfaced about what one general has called “rot” in the U.S.’s land-based nuclear force.
Top generals have been relieved for drinking and gambling, while airmen at Western bases have been caught cheating on preparedness tests.
Last week, the TV news magazine “60 Minutes” took a trip below ground at a missile base in Wyoming and talked to some of the young airmen responsible for maintaining our nuclear defenses.
What the cameras found was not reassuring. In one case, a giant safety blast door was jammed open with a crowbar and had been broken for months. The show focused on frayed wires on old-fashioned telephones used in the underground bunkers, and floppy discs used to operate 1960s-era computers.
Out of sight, and out of mind, apparently.
Which seems an extremely dangerous way to guard, maintain and potentially operate the most destructive weapons on Earth.
This comes on top of last year’s book by author Eric Schlosser tracing hundreds of nuclear weapon mishaps dating back to the 1940s.
Schlosser makes a convincing argument that the U.S. has regularly courted nuclear disasters many times over the past 60 years.
The CBS news show said the Air Force plans to spend $19 million this year to improve launch control at missile sites, which is a pittance compared to what’s needed.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will cost $355 billion over the next 10 years to maintain and upgrade the U.S.’s nuclear force, including bombers, submarines and ground missiles.
It is time for some deep thinking about how much and what type of nuclear deterrence is now necessary.
That $355 billion could be put to so much more productive use paving highways, rebuilding bridges, paying for college educations or reinforcing our nation’s Social Security and Medicaid systems.
A safe, reliable deterrence is necessary. What we have now seems neither.
rrhoades@sunjournal.com
The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and the editorial board.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
