East Oregonian
A4
Thursday, December 27, 2018
CHRISTOPHER RUSH
Publisher
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Managing Editor
WYATT HAUPT JR.
News Editor
Founded October 16, 1875
OTHER VIEWS
Better train brakes
could avert disaster
Medford Mail Tribune
H
ow much is a human life worth?
That may sound like a cold calcu-
lation, but it is relevant to a dispute
over safety standards for trains that carry
highly flammable crude oil and ethanol
across the United States, including down the
Columbia Gorge.
In September, the Trump administration
scrapped an Obama-era rule that would have
required new-generation electronic brakes
on trains carrying flammable fuels, say-
ing the cost of complying with the new rule
would be higher than the benefit.
Last week, the Associated Press deter-
mined that the government’s analysis of the
new rule left out $117 million in estimated
future damages from train derailments that
could be prevented by installing the elec-
tronic braking systems.
Not to worry, Transportation Department
officials said. They will publish a correction
in the federal register, but the decision to
scrap the rule stands.
Why? Because even with the addi-
tional savings, the cost of better brakes still
exceeds the benefit of fewer crashes.
This is just the latest example of train and
oil industry resistance to safety improve-
ments aimed at oil trains that pose the risk
of catastrophic explosions and fires. In 2015,
the Obama administration adopted a pack-
age of new safety requirements after dozens
of accidents involving trains carrying hun-
dreds of tank cars full of volatile crude oil
from tar sands in Canada. The worst such
accident happened in 2013 in Quebec, when
an unattended oil train derailed in Lac-Me-
gantic, killing 47 people and obliterating
much of the town in a huge fireball.
In 2016, a Union Pacific train derailed
near Mosier in the Columbia Gorge. No
one was killed, and the resulting fire did no
major damage, but the accident could have
been much worse.
The new braking systems apply brakes
simultaneously on all cars in a train rather
that sequentially, as conventional air brake
systems do. This allows trains to stop faster
and reduces the number of cars that derail.
Safety advocates are calling for reconsid-
ering the rule and recalculating the benefits
of the new brakes.
Bill Castle via AP
In this Nov. 8, 2013, file photo, a tanker train carrying crude oil burns after derailing in western
Alabama outside Aliceville, Ala.
The modern technology is not cheap;
the Obama Transportation Department esti-
mated upgrading braking systems would
cost $664 million over 20 years, but would
save $470 million to $1.1 billion from
avoiding accidents. The Trump administra-
tion reduced that benefit to between $131
million and $374 million, based largely on a
drop in the number of oil train shipments to
200,000 carloads.
While fewer shipments might mean sta-
tistically fewer accidents, all it takes is one
to destroy property and claim lives. Trans-
portation officials should recalculate the
benefit of preventing those deaths before
they happen, not after.
OTHER VIEWS
Withdrawal from Syria is the right move
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
uch of official Washington, mem-
bers of Congress, and members of
the press who regard themselves as
wise heads on foreign policy are in a state
of apoplexy over President Donald Trump’s
decision to withdraw U.S. troops from
Syria. They make two points: The way he
did it was wrong, and the decision itself was
wrong — the U.S. needs to stay in Syria.
One can certainly argue about any pres-
ident’s means and methods. And this pres-
ident relies, to an alarming degree, on his
own gut instinct over eminent advice and
empirical evidence. But in this case Mr.
Trump’s instinct was right. It is time to get
out of Syria.
One must start with why we got in. We
deployed land forces in Syria to neutralize
ISIS and, let’s be honest, topple a bloody
regime there. We have largely succeeded
at the first goal and failed abysmally at the
second.
So, why would we stay on at this point?
Although the political establishment, left
and right, Democratic and Republican, and
most of the top military leaders say this is
not the time to withdraw, none, none, can
tell us when the right time to withdraw is.
There is no right time. Look at
Afghanistan.
And, of greater significance, no one can
explain the current strategic advantage of
U.S. ground troops in Syria. They are not
stabilizing the country and they are not
leading us to a negotiated peace, which is
the only possible way to end the war. The
war is at a stalemate and no one can win it
militarily.
The rationale for staying is that, with-
M
out a continuing U.S military presence, ISIS
will reconstitute itself, Assad will dig in and
the Russians will gain an advantage. All of
this is possible, if not probable with U.S.
troops on the ground.
Why not negotiate with the Russians and
Assad? Evil though their regimes may be,
they are an inherent part of the equation,
and dealing with evil regimes (Saudi Arabia
and China are examples) is the task of U.S.
diplomacy.
Outgoing Defense Secretary James Mat-
tis is fond of saying that the military is only
the first line of defense. It makes way for
diplomacy. We have done, militarily, what
we can do in Syria.
ISIS will surely rise again, in all kinds of
places. We are not without options — intel-
ligence, special forces, air power — when
that happens. They are the same options we
would have if we kept troops in Syria.
While national interest (and there is lit-
tle pure national interest in Syria) should
not be the only calculus of U.S. foreign pol-
icy, American military involvement has
not advanced the cause of human rights in
Syria. To the contrary, arguably.
Our initial involvement in Syria, by
the Obama administration, was naive and
ignored history. We not only underestimated
Assad and the complexity of the situation,
but we ignored our own past failures. We
said we would bring freedom and democ-
racy to Iraq and Afghanistan, as we said,
two generations ago, we would bring them
to Vietnam. We failed because we did not
understand those places or what it would
take to accomplish those ends. Only in
Japan, after World War II, did we succeed in
establishing a new political order and cul-
ture of liberty. That had to do not only with
the particulars of that society and the pref-
ace of total military victory, but a willing-
ness by Japan to tolerate prolonged occupa-
tion and governance, and a willingness by
the U.S. to sustain it.
Donald Trump ran for president on a
promise to end U.S. military adventur-
ism, world policing and nation-building.
He meant it. Many Americans who did not
agree with Mr. Trump on much else agreed
with that. Mr. Trump made this pledge part
of his “America First” foreign policy. And
whatever else one might think of the pres-
ident or that policy, he holds fast to the
unique notion that the promises he makes as
a candidate, he must keep.
Finally, there is the not insignificant mat-
ter of the U.S. Constitution. It says that a
president must have a declaration of war
from the Congress to go to war. But Pres-
idents Bush (II) and Obama ignored this
basic norm, which is not only a primary
constitutional one, but a sound political
one. (Congress passed resolutions approv-
ing action in Afghanistan and Iraq, but this
fell short of the constitutional standard for a
declaration of war).
If we are to send our young people into
harm’s way and ask them to risk their lives
for us, the case for war must be made and
won with the American people. That was
not done for Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, just
as the Vietnam-era presidents did not do it.
Mr. Trump felt that no good case could now
be made for a young American to die in
Syria. This time his gut was right.
YOUR VIEWS
Big dairies can play by the
rules
Your editorial on large dairies was “spot
on.” For several years I was the citizen’s rep-
resentative to the Confined Animal Feeding
Operations advisory committee for the state
of Oregon.
Threemile Canyon Farms were always
in the forefront of innovative procedures in
the dairying industry. They located where
they are in part because of environmental
concerns. If potential problems were per-
ceived they would immediately do what was
necessary to solve the problem. An exam-
ple involved asking the state Department
of Agriculture to assist them in testing their
herd for Mad Cow Disease. When I left the
committee they were asking for assistance in
innovative procedures for composting their
waste.
My only concern at that time was, would
all of these innovations, environmental stew-
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of
the East Oregonian editorial board. Other
columns, letters and cartoons on this page
express the opinions of the authors and not
necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
ardship and efficiency create hardships for
smaller marginal operations?
Carlisle Harrison
Hermiston
The good, the bad, and the
other
Good news: After stifling new develop-
ment for nearly a decade, the Pendleton City
Council has voted to repeal the plan known
as the River Quarter Overlay. Although
described as “a good plan” by one council
member, its failure confirmed that it really
wasn’t good for anyone except the consul-
tants that drew up all the plans.
More good news: Cost overruns on the
Eighth Street Bridge replacement project,
caused by the Pendleton Enhancement Proj-
ect (PEP), should be a thing of the past now
that its director has resigned and the reloca-
tion of the old bridge to Main Street has been
abandoned. Hopefully, donations for the proj-
ect will be used to cover those cost increases,
and hopefully the Pendleton Development
Commission (PDC)/City Council will step
up, dispose of the old bridge, and put this
rather bad idea to rest once and for all. After
all, with 22 city parks to maintain, facilities
like the Round-Up and Happy Canyon stadi-
ums, the Convention Center, Recreation Cen-
ter, and the Vert Auditorium all at our dis-
posal, do we really need more?
Not so good news: With the formation of
the North Bank Umatilla Advisory Commit-
tee, city officials will be shifting their focus
away from the River Walkway over to the
north side of the Umatilla River, attempt-
ing again to limit any new economic devel-
opment and instead turning the area into a
wildlife refuge. Other Oregon cities are seek-
ing authority to limit deer populations within
their borders because of the problems they
create. Our city officials are taking the oppo-
site approach putting any problems created
on future generations.
The bad news: The Feds have given the
thumbs down on the city’s request for $26
million to redo Exit 209. Perhaps they are
aware of the way the Eighth Street Bridge
project has been mishandled, or maybe they
felt the proposed redesign of the exit offered
little in a long-term solution to the conges-
tion problem. Who knows? It looks like we’ll
be relying on our “consulting agency” to sort
it all out.
Other news: On the economic develop-
ment front, city financial support beyond that
for the downtown association’s pub crawl is
being proposed for a Wild West Brew Fest.
Rumors persist that a “pot” festival is com-
ing. It may be time for Chief Roberts and
AA to consider staffing up for an increase in
business.
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies for
publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold letters
that address concerns about individual services and products or letters that infringe on the rights of
private citizens. Letters must be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime
phone number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published.
Rick Rohde
Pendleton
Send letters to managing
editor Daniel Wattenburger,
211 S.E. Byers Ave.
Pendleton, OR 9780, or email
editor@eastoregonian.com.