Editor’s note: This commentary is by Col. Rosanne Greco, USAF (Retired), who spent 30 years on active duty in the Air Force, is a former chair of the South Burlington City Council, and a member of Save Our Skies VT
[O]n a recent warm sunny morning, I had a beautiful daydream. It went like this: I was sitting on my front porch peacefully gazing at the blue sky when I saw an aircraft rising into the eastern sky, after having taken off from the airport in South Burlington. It was being flown by a pilot from the Vermont Air National Guard. I knew what she was about to do … and I smiled.
In my daydream, this is a military transport/cargo aircraft with a mission to provide supplies to our military serving overseas, or to deliver humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to people in the United States and around the world. I swell with gratitude and pride, knowing our Air Guard is providing food, water, water filtration devices, clothing, bedding, home rebuilding supplies and maybe even medical assistance to people in need.
Sadly, this is only a daydream. It is not our current reality, nor will it be our future if the F-35 fighter-bomber is based in Burlington. The mission of the F-35 is to attack and destroy. Worse still is that this kind of mission sometimes kills innocent human beings. The purpose of an F-16 and an F-35 is to destroy. That is what pilots of fighter bombers do — in our name.
It doesn’t have to be that way. We can demand a change in the mission of our Vermont Air National Guard. We can demand a mission that is more in alignment with Vermonters’ values. I cannot imagine Vermonters wanting our Guard to destroy and kill innocent people in our name; I can certainly imagine Vermonters wanting our Guard to save lives and to rebuild societies.
The good news is that my daydream can come true. Vermont can acquire a peace-bringing flying mission. Vermont can do what other states have done: Switch from fighter aircraft to transport/cargo aircraft. How do we do this? By telling our senators, in particular Sen. Patrick Leahy, to back off of their baffling support for the insanely expensive, technologically flawed, dangerously unsafe, and devastatingly noisy F-35. We can tell Leahy and Sanders to instruct the Air Force to get us a safe and quiet military aircraft — one compatible with a densely populated residential area — like a transport/cargo plane, which has a humanitarian mission.
The U. S. Air Force, which is the ultimate authority, told us that the F-35 will negatively affect more than 6,600 local people, many of whom are minorities or low income folks, and thousands of whom are children. The F-35 should never be based in a residential area. If it belongs anywhere, it should be at an Air Force base in less populated parts of our country.
Despite his protestations that he “would never put his finger on the scale,” Leahy used his Congressional status and power to pressure the Air Force to select Burlington for the F-35 despite the fact that it was not needed for the Air Guard’s mission, and despite the fact that it brings no positive economic benefits. On the contrary, the Air Force reported that the F-35 would likely damage people’s health and cause a decrease in their property values. In contrast, military transport/cargo aircraft, which are comparable to commercial airliners in noise and safety, would cause no harm to local people and would actually add more Air Guard jobs.
Pat Leahy has done lots of wonderful things for Vermont and our country. Would that he were as concerned about the 6,600 people who live around the airport as he is for 18 fighter bombers. His legacy will either be one associated with destroying Vermont communities and destroying enemy “targets” in foreign countries, or one of preserving Vermont neighborhoods, and delivering life-saving supplies beyond Vermont’s borders.
I look forward to the day when my daydream becomes reality, and I will see from my front porch a life-saving military aircraft flying in our skies, and I will be smiling.
