A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Canon City Daily Record, Jan. 9, on the war and U.S. presence in Afghanistan:
Ten years ago, American troops rolled into Afghanistan and uprooted the theocracy that had given aid and shelter to the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks.
In the decade since, billions of dollars have been spent to create security on the ground while re-establishing the rule of law throughout the countryside. The cost also includes the lives of thousands of American troops and lifelong injuries to many thousands more.
And yet, except for a unilaterally imposed deadline for troop withdrawals by the United States and its allies, there seems to be no end to the instability of the country.
Last week, however, might have offered a glimpse of hope. The Taliban, a group of fundamentalist Muslims who had control of the country during its darkest days and the loosely formed umbrella under which continuing insurgent attacks have occurred, has announced the opening of an office in Qatar that could be a base of operations for future peace negotiations.
Before anyone gets too excited about the notion, however, keep in mind earlier acts of treachery by those claiming to be working toward peace. In 2011, a purported Taliban envoy was able to get through security and detonate a suicide bomb that claimed the life of a former Afghan president working toward peace. In 2010, an Afghan was able to convince Americans and the local government that he was a representative of the group — and then he absconded with hundreds of thousands of dollars that had been directed toward peace efforts.
Also, the Taliban believes they are in a superior negotiating position, that they are winning the war by inflicting a million tiny cuts instead of launching a large, coordinated campaign. The peace effort might be a ploy merely to free their brethren who are behind bars in Afghan prisons.
However, it serves the Americans and the Afghan government to hear what this group might have to say. And if that group can show it has influence by, say, stopping attacks for a lengthy period, it could be the start of the endgame in Afghanistan.
The United States cannot be there forever, and American leaders need to recognize what would be an outcome that would allow our troops to come home in an orderly way and Afghanistan to be a place where outlaw groups such as al-Qaida could not act with impunity.
The deadline for troop withdrawal is getting ever closer. Peace talks might be the only way for the deadline to be adhered to in an orderly way.
Editorial:
———
The Pueblo Chieftain, Jan. 10, on cuts in the U.S. military budget outlined by President Barack Obama:
President Barack Obama outlined substantial cuts in military spending over the next decade when he made a rare appearance to the Pentagon last week. The message: We’re going to use the peace dividend to provide more domestic spending.
He said his administration would not repeat the mistakes made after World War II and Vietnam when defense reductions left the military ill-prepared. But what he wants to do is shift from our current two-war capability to a “win-spoil” plan that maintains the capability to fight and win one regional conflict while spoiling the military aspirations of another adversary in a different theater.
Specifically, he wants the Pentagon to focus on Asia-Pacific. This presupposes an ability to predict and control the actions of possible enemies, discounting the common-sense view that the world is dynamic and filled with uncertainty—and a significant number of bad actors.
Responding to the new plan, U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., a Marine Corps combat veteran and member of the House Armed Services Committee, urged the administration to consider military spending reductions that achieve major budget cuts without compromising national security. “I believe that we can responsibly cut defense spending without compromising capability,” he said, “but changing our strategy from an ability to simultaneously fight two conflicts to only one compromises our security as a nation.”
Rep. Coffman has been a critic of the top-heavy Pentagon. “The Navy has more admirals than ships and the other services are just as top-heavy,” he said. “I’ll be looking for specifics to see whether this effort to streamline the military to reduce cost goes far enough.”
As an example, he noted that the U.S. spends an inordinate amount to defend South Korea and asked why we shouldn’t ask Seoul to increase its financial support.
Meanwhile, the defense budget could shrink by more than 30 percent in the next decade, down to 2.7 percent of GDP in 2021 from 4.5 percent last year. That would put U.S. outlays at 1940 levels—when the American military was ill-equipped to enter World War II.
We hope thoughtful members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will be careful not to gut our nation’s ability to defend our citizenry. After all, that’s the first responsibility of our national government.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Daily Sentinel, Jan. 3. on state political climate in regards to marijuana:
Think the major issues related to marijuana use and sales in Colorado were decided over the past year or so, as communities voted on whether to allow medical marijuana dispensaries within their borders?
Think again. Marijuana appears poised to play a significant role in the politics of this state again this year.
Voters in the mountain town of Eagle take first shot at the politics of the issue today, when they vote on whether to allow a medical marijuana dispensary to continue operating.
The Eagle Town Board originally approved of such businesses, but last year adopted an ordinance to prohibit them. Operators of the Sweet Leaf dispensary and their supporters petitioned to get a measure on the ballot to let voters decide.
Meanwhile, the head of the Colorado Department of Revenue late last month wrote a letter to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, noting the conflicts between federal law—which makes all possession and sale of marijuana illegal—and Colorado’s legalization of pot for medical uses.
According to The Denver Post, Barbara Brohl, executive director of the Revenue Department, was acting on a bill passed by the Legislature in 2010 that requires the request that federal authorities move marijuana from a Schedule I to the lesser Schedule II, in which harmful drugs are listed as having some medicinal uses.
Two other states, Washington and Rhode Island, have made similar requests. But, in a presidential election year, it’s hard to believe anyone in the Obama administration will want to stir up a new controversy by changing the designation for pot.
By far the biggest political fight in Colorado over marijuana this year is likely to come in November. As reported in The Daily Sentinel last week, a group pushing to legalize small quantities of marijuana for all uses, not just medical ones, appears to have more than enough signatures to get the legalization measure on this year’s ballot.
The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol is expected to submit petitions with 155,000 signatures, nearly double what they need, to the Colorado Secretary of State this week.
The group argues that legalizing the sale and possession of small amounts of marijuana and regulating it through approved retail outlets, just as we do now with alcohol, would be a much safer way to handle marijuana and would provide a revenue bonanza for state and local governments.
Many observers, The Daily Sentinel included, have long believed that the drive to legalize medical marijuana in Colorado and other states was just one step in a nationwide effort to eventually legalize marijuana entirely. Some people undoubtedly derive medical benefits from using pot. But the effort to allow it for medical uses aimed to show it can be legalized safely.
That appears to be what is occurring in Colorado. Some of the same people behind this year’s ballot measure were involved in a successful 2006 effort to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in Denver.
It looks like voters throughout the state will get to decide if they also believe pot should be legal for recreational, as well as medicinal use—if they can cut through the haze of overhyped rhetoric likely to be presented by both sides.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Jan.9, on the state rules surrounding fracking:
One area where we could see both parties come together in the upcoming legislative session is to oppose calls for additional state regulations of oil and gas drilling—particularly pertaining to local control of hydraulic fracturing.
Given the political battles in recent years on drilling oversight, that’s both an accomplishment and a testament to the quality of state rules.
Fracturing, or “fracking,” involves pumping large quantities of water and sand, and a small amount of chemicals, into the ground to create fissures and help free fossil fuels.
Late last year, Colorado adopted the country’s most stringent rules regarding disclosure of fracking fluids. Environmental and industry groups agreed to the rules, which is no small feat.
But as drilling increases along the Front Range, the issue has drawn concern from residents and local governments. Moratoriums are in place or have been considered in El Paso, Douglas and Arapahoe counties and in Commerce City, Colorado Springs and Longmont.
At least one lawmaker has said he intends to introduce a measure that would give local communities greater control over regulating fracking.
Supporters of the idea argue that local governments have a right to address drilling in much the same way they craft regulations for other land-use issues, such as growth and development and medical marijuana.
But those efforts exist in arenas where state regulation is lacking or explicitly envisions a local role.
Oversight of oil and gas drilling has long been a function of the state, which has developed considerable expertise in the highly technical field.
Three years ago, Colorado passed rules that addressed environmental and safety concerns associated with drilling. They allow local communities to participate in the permitting process with the COGCC—including the right to appeal decisions.
The COGCC can also create regulations specific to certain areas and enter into “memorandums of agreement” with local governments. One such agreement, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission director David Neslin points out, will allow Gunnison County to share inspection authority after county inspectors are approved and trained by state officials.
In conversations with us last week, Republican and Democratic statehouse leaders said they’re leery of rules to expand local oversight.
House Speaker Frank McNulty worried about creating “a patchwork of regulations” across the state that make the climate difficult for regulators and the industry.
Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said: “Whoever brings that forward, the duty will be on them to prove that there’s value added with the legislation beyond what is already in existing compromise rules.”
Given the scope of state regulations on oil and gas drilling enacted in the last three years, we have a hard time at present seeing the need for additional rules.
Editorial:
