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bases used by only one of the four services and large installations whose missions, training, ammunition or weapons are outdated.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/
Interesting...left Bitburg in June 1981. I had 1 year and 2 months left on my active duty and was really hoping to get a base "somewhere" in the southeast (home). Where did I wind up? You guessed it...the Pacific Northwest (McChord to be exact). Nothing like filling out "dream sheets".
Used to hate when the F-4's at Spang would come over and do "touch-n-go's" on our runway. Loud and oily! Nothing like the old F-15'S we had.
Were good taco's eh! And always remember to order you "pomme frites" with no mayo. Germans loved mayo on French fries...yuk!
"LAAFB, the only Air Force Base without a runway"
Kinda stifles your argument...check out Bolling AFB....
Or Onizuka AFS.
Dream sheets...LOL!
I filled mine out requesting Langley, and the Eastern seaboard. Some smarta$$ at personnel said "hmmm...Langley has an N, an E, and two L's....so does Nellis...he really wants to go there!"
On the flip side, Nellis was cool - I spent ten years there working on prototypes and "special" projects as an engine mechanic.
The 525 gang will whine incessantly.
~ Dream sheets...LOL! ~
Yep, Remember my very first one we filled out at Lackland said "Overseas Volunteer; yes or no"
I put "no" and my first duty station was Germany. Didn't learn did I?
On the other hand, saw alot of nice places and met people that I might not have had the chance to otherwise.
Exactly right. Getting rid of underutilized/unused domestic real estate does not mean you are reducing troop strength, or impacting readiness. The purpose of the Department of Defense is to defend the nation. It's purpose is not to serve as a jobs program to prop up local economies.
(BTW, I work at a base in the Northeast which stands a very good chance of being closed).
You're correct. I stand corrected. Shame on me for relying on the LA Times for my information. It wasn't part of my argument though. I was arguing either -- merely stating an observation.
Technically not an AFB, but I get your point. Thanks.
Why do we still have troops in Bosnia and Kosovo?
There are already a lot of "smart" folks in Alabama. Huntsville is suppose to have more PhD's per capita than any other city in the USA, and yes, many of them are rocket scientists and aerospace engineers. The city has one of the largest research technology parks besides Silicon Valley and Raleigh-Durham. Huntsville isn't at all what most people expect when they think of Alabama.
If you have ever been on a base that was closing you will find a furious level of new building and rebuilding in an effort to stave off the closure. Those that are pretty secure don't have to prove themselves -- the mission does that. Those with a dubious mission will overbuild at the last minute to try to compensate.
ok, that makes perfect sense. I guess...
True - it's a station, not a base - just like Gunter and Ent used to be.
What happens is like this; once the threat of closure becomes real to the locals then suddenly the impass that was preventing local construction disappears. The local contractors make concessions that they wouldn't have earlier in order to try to ensure the base stays open.
Contractors probably put their individual politics aside, however temporary. Some of them are in there building runways and towers, etc. but don't expect them to come to the airshows for anything but the possibility of a crash and burn if at all.
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.