As the U.S. prepares to respond to the ghastly terrorist attacks of September 11, the hard task will be to choose among effective options while minimizing the costs. Environmental concerns might seem trivial and even unpatriotic at a time like this, but the environmental effects of military action pose long-term dangers that we would be foolish to ignore. Thinking in environmental terms at this moment should not be surprising. We must be alert to the likelihood that aggression toward the United States may increasingly take the form of environmental terrorism, including biological and chemical warfare. Even conventional attacks create environmental risk. Witness the concern over asbestos exposure for rescue workers at the World Trade Center. Terrorists may not care about such things, but we should. Our military response should be tailored to minimize and mitigate collateral environmental damage wherever possible. Environmental losses are casualties too. They ought to be included in our strategic thinking about where and what to strike.
This is in our national interest. Patriotism and environmentalism go hand in hand.
As the President has made clear, our response will come at a price. One of the costs, which will affect all of us down the road, will be environmental degradation. Depending on where and how we strike, we risk exposing large populations, including our own troops, to lethal toxic substances. We have some experience with the long-term effects of exposing military and civilian personnel to potentially dangerous chemicals such as the defoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam and a variety of toxic agents in the Gulf War. These health effects can be devastating.
Just as terrorism knows no borders, neither do environmental problems. Those environmental harms that do not affect foreign civilians or our own troops directly will eventually come home to roost in the form of...