Lodging Beefs

Two national groups have weighed in on the contentious question of a new hotel at Fort Lee. The National Restaurant Association and the American Hotel and Lodging Association have written a letter expressing dismay that "a hotel of this magnitude will usurp business from local lodging and restaurant businesses which have spent years investing in the local community . . . ."

Those concerns merit a sympathetic hearing -- tempered by the recognition that the businesses also have benefited from Fort Lee's presence over the years. Indeed, from Quantico to Norfolk Naval Station, Virginia's civilian economy has enjoyed great blessings as a result of the state's large military presence.

But it is important not to confuse the effects of the armed forces' presence with the essence of their purpose. National defense defines the federal government's primary obligation. Military necessity, not economic consequences, should rule the day -- whether the question concerns base realignment, the moving of a carrier strike force, or the suitability of a new on-base facility.

Perhaps a case can be made that Fort Lee doesn't need the hotel (which would serve low-rank, low-paid personnel and their families who might find off-base accommodations tough to pay for). There is no case to be made that the fort should forgo what the brass deem necessary in order to subsidize local businesses.

Elsewhere, the American Hotel and Lodging Association has expressed dismay over the elimination, some years ago, of the United States Travel and Tourism Administration, which it claims has led to a decline in foreign visitation: "America's competitors are spending the equivalent of billions of dollars to attract visitors, while we spend nothing."

It is quite natural for a trade industry to pretend as if the federal government's first job is to serve and protect the prosperity of its members. The rest of us know better.