existing framework of both PPBES and Acquisition.
Further, it must be done within the existing funding
lines, not pushed to the side until additional funding
becomes available because that is an unrealistic time-
frame and therefore an unacceptable approach. Our
soldiers and counterparts in the field need this now
and leadership needs to look at them with confidence
and say their survivability is part of every equation
and every decision. When the fiscal decisions are fully
vetted, let it show that the most valuable return on
investment is a sustainable security for our nation, our
soldiers and the populations we deploy to assist.
References
Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI). 2010a.
Fully burdened cost of managing waste in contingency
operations. Washington D.C.: AEPI.
Army Environmental Policy Institute. 2010b. Method-
ology and analysis of energy security in military opera-
tions. Washington D.C.: AEPI.
Army Environmental Policy Institute. 2008. Sustain
the mission project: Energy and water costing meth-
odology and decision support tool. Washington D.C.:
AEPI.
Army Environmental Policy Institute. 2006. Sustain
the mission project: Casualty factors for fuel and water
resupply convoys. Washington D.C.: AEPI.
Association of the United States Army (AUSA). 2010.
Capability Portfolio Reviews. Washington D.C.: In-
stitute of Land Warfare.