Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Rosanne Greco, the chair of the South Burlington City Council and a retired U.S. Air Force colonel.
In the past few months, incorrect statements have appeared in numerous letters, articles and interviews regarding the F-35A basing at the Burlington Air Guard Station. The most recent of these was the Burlington Free Press “My Turn” article titled “F-35s right choice for Vermont” on Sept. 9, and the gubernatorial debate on Sept. 12.
Two of the most prevalent misstatements are that the Burlington Guard Station will close if the F35A is not based here, and that basing the F35A in South Burlington will result in more jobs and/or will be an economic gain for the area.
According to high-ranking personnel, and the official Air Force report, both assertions are false. No government official has ever said that the Burlington Guard Station is going to close if the F-35A is not based here; and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement concludes that basing the F-35A at the Burlington Air Guard Station will result in minor to no economic gain to our area. (DEIS page BR4-72)
There is no increase in jobs under one scenario. And under the second scenario, there would be only minor economic effects from the 266 additional military persons. All of the full-time military would be transferred here from other places (DEIS page BR4-74); and it is highly unlikely that any of them would be Vermonters.
Employing scare tactics about the station closing and then implying it would be like the closing of Plattsburgh — an active duty Air Force base with over 5,000 military personnel — is grossly misleading. The Burlington Air Guard Station has a 300-person workforce and is a tenant of Burlington International Airport with whom it shares runways. And regardless of what politicians personally believe about the noise, the Air Force report clearly states the F-35A is four times louder than the F-16.
It’s vital to look at the credentials and impetus of those voicing opinions. You may have noticed that some senior military officers become vocal anti-war/weapons advocates after retirement. As a junior officer, I remember being shocked when the four-star general in charge of the Strategic Air Command where I worked became an anti-nuclear-war advocate shortly after his retirement. Now I understand, because the longer one serves in the military and the higher one’s rank, the more chances there are for that individual to have personally experienced the costs of war, or to have witnessed it in their troops.
On too many occasions, military members, including those returning from battle, find their salaries frozen, their benefits cut, their health care diminished, their family benefits slashed, and when they retire, their health care costs skyrocket.
The costs of war are not limited to the battlefield where soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines lose their lives or parts of their lives. On too many occasions, military members, including those returning from battle, find their salaries frozen, their benefits cut, their health care diminished, their family benefits slashed, and when they retire, their health care costs skyrocket. Some military people even lose their jobs. Why? To pay for weapon systems. The Department of Defense routinely cuts personnel and personnel benefits to pay for weapons, some of which the military never even wants. I’ve seen it happen during my 29 years on active duty in the U.S. Air Force. And it will likely happen again in the very near future.
See beyond the slogans to the reality. “Jobs at any cost” is a slippery slope. All jobs cost … some more so than others. War provides jobs; but without examining the costs, one could be led to the conclusion that since war creates jobs, and is good for the economy, wars should be promoted. As morally reprehensible as that sounds, it unfortunately appears to be our sad reality. Expensive weapons systems do create jobs and are indeed an economic boom — to defense contractors. But they come at a huge cost to the average taxpayer and military member. Military aircraft in our area have already cost South Burlington 200 affordable homes and the loss of a neighborhood. The impact of the F-35A will be far greater. Think of the costs, because the F-35A will cost us dearly.
