Okay. Last week I commented on Rep. Colleen Hanabusa’s interpersonal skills, which certainly make her an effective campaigner who can connect with voters.

Then, just a few days later, came news reports on her sponsorship of a bill that would appear to dramatically expand the military use of the Pohakuloa training area, including facilities capable of handling larger aircraft, more use by foreign nations, combined air-ground maneuvers, etc.

What struck me was that her glowing assessment of the bill seemed oblivious to the environmental, cultural, and political damage that such an expansion will entail.

Just a couple of days after Hanabusa’s bill was announced, it was reported that a lawsuit was filed alleging the state has failed to enforce lease provisions requiring the military to clear unexploded ordnance left by training operations at Pohakuloa.

Even the Star-Advertiser, in an editorial this morning, took a cautious stance (“Pohakuloa plans need balance“).

Encompassing 133,000 acres on Hawaii island’s high central plateau, Pohakuloa has been envisioned as a 21st-century training field to ensure combat-readiness of U.S. forces, a key element in regional defense, and in Hawaii filling its regional role.

However, this preparedness will come at a cost. Hawaii land is a precious resource, with associated cultural and environmental assets. That means the job of Hawaii’s elected leaders — who represent civilian interests as well as the military — is to see that the cost is not too high.

That’s no small order. Finding the right balance has been an elusive goal, with the ordnance-laced landscape of Kahoolawe, as well as years of environmental court fights over training activities in Leeward Oahu’s Makua Valley, as part of the legacy.

There’s a long history here. Leading up to WWII, and during the years Hawaii was under martial law, the military basically took control of any lands that it might be able to use. Sometimes the land was “set aside” for military use by presidential or gubernatorial executive orders. In the post WWII years, there was pushback from the territorial government which wanted to reclaim control of public lands. During that period and up through statehood, many federally controlled lands were converted to leases of fixed duration that required the military to clean up and return the lands in their original condition.

Of course, that’s been routinely violated over the years in many places, Waikane Valley, Kahoolawe, and Pohakuloa among them. The additional issue of the presence of depleted uranium at Pohakuloa and its potential affects on health have become public issues in the past several years as well.

During that post-WWII period, it’s my impression that local Republican leaders took stronger action to reassert local control over military-held land than the emerging Democratic Party. Why? Because Democrats saw the development of the defense industry as a way to break the political control of the plantation elite, an alternative to the plantation economy.

So where does that leave us today? I’m afraid elected officials of all stripes are more afraid of offending the military by expressing the resentment felt by local residents over continued military control of such vast tracts of land. Pohakuloa alone covers some 133,000 acres, according the Army.

That would be a large training area even in a big mainland state. In a small island state like ours, it’s a huge footprint that feels oppressive–and destructive–to many.

There were decades of protests, political pressure, and legal action that finally led to the end of military use of Kahoolawe. Long-term pressure has also reduced training at Makua and, to some extent, Schofied Barracks. As Hawaii’s civilian population grows, pressure to reduce the military footprint will continue to build.

I wonder how continued military control of Pohakuloa is viewed by Big Islanders. I wonder how much of the economic benefit actually stays in the Hawaii Island economy and how much is raked off by defense contractors from elsewhere?

In any case, Rep. Hanabusa’s presentation of her bill to expand the militarization of Pohakuloa as an unalloyed good is a disappointment.