Posted on 02/20/2005 8:55:28 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Safe for a decade, military bases in the United States face an uncertain future.
The Pentagon (news - web sites) plans to shut down or scale back some of the 425 facilities, the first such effort to save money in 10 years. The downsizing is part of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's long-term transformation of the Cold War-era military.
The Pentagon chief argues that closing or consolidating stateside facilities could save $7 billion annually and that the money would be better spent improving fighting capabilities amid threats from terrorists.
"The department continues to maintain more military bases and facilities than are needed, consuming and diverting valuable personnel and resources," Rumsfeld recently told lawmakers.
Shrinking the domestic network of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps bases is a certain source of savings. It also is a high-stakes political fight because it affects local economies in congressional districts.
Lawmakers have resisted efforts to shutter their bases, challenging past base closing rounds and lobbying hard to keep their installation off the final list.
"It's the perfect example of good policy and good politics not fitting in the same room together," said Christopher Hellman, an analyst with the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington.
"Conceptually, lawmakers buy the argument that base closures are important to make sure they are spending resources wisely. But they are reticent of closing bases in their cities because of job losses," Hellman said.
Rumsfeld has estimated that extra base capacity is at nearly 25 percent. But Republican lawmakers said the secretary recently told them that the cuts will not be as deep, in part because the military needs a home for 70,000 troops returning from Europe.
The Pentagon says that all domestic bases are under consideration, but clearly some are more vulnerable than others.
Topping the list are aging facilities, small bases used by only one of the four services and large installations whose missions, training, ammunition or weapons are outdated.
The Northeast is home to many bases configured to defend against the Soviet threat. They could absorb the biggest hit now that many former Soviet bloc nations are U.S. allies.
Congress authorized the fifth round of Base Realignment and Closure — commonly known as BRAC — last year. The first deadline in the yearlong process is March 15, when President Bush (news - web sites) must name a nine-member commission that will review a list of closures that Rumsfeld will propose by May.
Congressional leaders have submitted their six recommendations. Bush will make his three choices known shortly.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., selected retired Gen. John G. Coburn, a former Army deputy chief of staff, and retired Navy Adm. Harold W. Gehman Jr., a former supreme allied commander of the Atlantic.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., offered former Rep. James V. Hansen, R-Utah, and former Transportation Secretary Samuel Skinner.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada picked former Democratic Rep. James Bilbray, D-Nev. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., recommended Phillip E. Coyle, a former Pentagon official and a defense researcher.
As the process gets under way, lawmakers and communities are stepping up efforts to show their bases are essential. They also are lobbying for new missions and projects for their facilities to make the bases less attractive for closure.
Congress authorized the closures last year, rejecting a delay until 2007. Still, some Republicans and Democrats continue to fight.
"I will try to stop it at any point and in any way I possibly can," said Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss. Closing bases while the country is at war is "the worst possible timing," Lott says.
He lobbied hard during previous rounds to keep open the Meridian Naval Air Station in Mississippi, which barely escaped closure. It could be targeted again this year.
Other lawmakers say the round will go forward.
"We had a debate. We voted. We had a majority say we're going forward. How could you possibly reverse it? It would be crazy," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz.
Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), said it was essential for the military to eliminate "those bases, structures, buildings, compounds that aren't on the very edge of what we need to defend ourselves."
The Pentagon estimates that previous closures in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 eliminated 20 percent of domestic bases and saved about $16.7 billion through 2001, and roughly $7 billion annually since.
Congress has refused repeated requests by the Pentagon to close more bases since 1995. Part of the reason was lingering Republican distrust after President Clinton (news - web sites) moved to ease the economic impact from two base closings in vote-rich California and Texas just before his re-election campaign in 1996.
In 2001, with Clinton out of office, the Pentagon nearly got its wish for closures in 2003. But after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress delayed the closures until this year.
___
On the Net:
Defense Department background on base closings: http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/
exactly
Thats what Hillary said about taxes
Nonetheless, it still makes sense to have our military capability spread about. It is a WMD age, and putting huge portions of our military in a few locations encourages, imo, especially a nuclear attack.
We must never pretend that there are no nuclear nations incapable of reaching North America.
If they are not needed they are pork.
Things change. But pork is still pork.
Someone will get hurt, someone always gets hurt but they
can and should go onward and upward. If not, that is their
fault.
Do you really think opportunity only happens once in a life
time?
Build up when you need it and take it down when you don't.
Not that complicated.
Good way to knock some RATS out of office ...
LAAFB, the only Air Force Base without a runway, is involved in missile defense. The missile defense work could be moved to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, which is the home of the Army's Missile Defense Agency and the Army's Aviation and Missile Command. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, which develops rocket propulsion, is also located on Redstone. If you're looking to combine efforts, then that consolidating to Redstone would make a lot of sense.
You're pretty certain China will someday be a threat?
I'm absolutely certain China will be a threat. I'm so certain I'll put a date on it. 2025. Wait and see.
Anyway THAT'S the only base we should be operating in Germany. It's by far one of the coldest hospitals I've seen but it seems to be very efficient.
That's why we need West Coast ship yards ready for conversion to the Navy to be kept in place.
Weisbaden is the hospital installation that I remember being the main one as a stopover for transit to the States. I remember when the hostages got released from Iran in 1981, their stop was at Weisbaden. I was in Bitburg Germany at the time (I believe it was closed some time back). I'm curious how much Germany has changed since I was there 24 years ago.....
Therefore someday there would be many men without families eager or willing to go to war. I think she's right and 2025 is very possible.
They don't seem to be throwing out the shackles of communism since the tank came through and flattened their oppsition. Sad.
Good Ideal... I definately make some money off of them.
I think its sad that the Navy has only two major bases for SuperHornets.... One west and one east. Dosent something thing that something is wrong with that....
How about blue state bases? After all, the liberals hate the military as much as they hate America, if not more.
...and what are you basing this thoughtful analysis on?
Are their that may military bases in the blue CITIES?
Most of the rural counties in the 'blue' states where actually red.
This is very dangerous. I'm afraid we're following in the footsteps of the former world powers where we rely on our nuclear capabilities too much.
I think this is going to cause us to rely on others to help us fight a conventional war of any size.
We already know what the rest of the world thinks about us.
The first major sign of a country in decline on the world stage is the decline of it's military's conventional forces.
I don't see the world being any safer than it has been.
Along the lines of our conversation this weekend...
Bitburg was closed, along with Hahn AB, but I'm really not sure how many years ago. I'm surprised that Spangdahlem is the one of those three that's still active.
The K-Town area needs to be maintained: Ramstein, Miesau, and the various Kasernes have the infrastructure needed for combined arms operations in Europe.
I'm curious how much Germany has changed since I was there 24 years ago.....
Me, too! Haven't made it back since I left in July of '81. I loved my tour there! Of course, I was a bachelor, so I was footloose and fancy free. Never did spend much time in Bitburg, although my last two years were at 6/56 ADA at Spangdahlem.
I do remember going to that taco place in Bitburg every chance I could!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.